About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

REPORT: Cable news largely ignores new CBO health care score

July 07, 2009 5:43 pm ET

SUMMARY: CNN, Fox News Channel, and MSNBC aired at least 15 segments to discussing the Congressional Budget Office's preliminary analysis of an incomplete version of the Senate health committee's draft health reform bill, but they have aired only one segment to the CBO's analysis of the updated bill.

21 Comments

Following the June 15 release of a preliminary Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analysis of an incomplete version of the Senate health committee's draft health reform bill, CNN, Fox News Channel, and MSNBC on June 15 and June 16 featured at least 15 segments discussing the finding, frequently highlighting claims that the bill cost too much for the number of Americans it insured. By contrast, following the July 2 release of CBO's score of what the committee's chairman referred to as the "complete bill," only one segment across the three cable news networks from July 2 through July 6 reported or mentioned that the CBO had come out with a new analysis, according to a search of the Nexis database. The CBO calculated that the updated bill would cover more of the uninsured for a lower cost than it had estimated the earlier version of the bill would.

Media Matters has previously noted that the July 2 editions of the ABC and CBS evening news broadcasts also ignored the new CBO analysis of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) committee bill even though they reported on the earlier CBO analysis.

According to a Media Matters analysis of cable news programs on June 15 and June 16, Fox News featured seven segments, CNN six segments, and MSNBC two segments that mentioned or discussed the June 15 CBO preliminary analysis. Much of that coverage was marked by suggestions that the score indicated that the bill cost too much and did not insure enough people, without noting that the CBO analysis was of an incomplete version of the HELP committee bill. (In only one segment, on the June 16 edition of MSNBC's The Ed Show, was the CBO analysis discussed specifically to emphasize that it was "an incomplete estimate" and that the "calculations are preliminary.") For example, on the June 16 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, guest Glenn Beck cited the CBO's analysis:

BECK: Exactly right. Now, listen, what Obama is doing -- and all of the progressives, I mean -- we played a segment last night on television. And they all had -- they're all saying this in their little caucuses that this is just the first step to getting rid of the private sector health care. If you look at the CBO numbers this is going to cost us an extra trillion dollars in debt. This is the Congressional Budget Office numbers. Trillion dollars in debt in the next nine years. And it's only going to leave 39 million people without health care as opposed to 45.

Some segments, such as a June 15 report on CNN's The Situation Room, noted that CBO had analyzed only a part of the bill, but nonetheless highlighted its findings and suggested it would jeopardize the bill's passage:

BRIANNA KEILAR (CNN congressional correspondent): Wolf, that's right. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has taken a look at the Democratic proposal that has come out of Ted Kennedy's Health Committee to overhaul health care. And here's what they're telling us: that it will cost over $1 trillion over the next 10 years and that over that decade, there will be a net gain of just 16 million more Americans getting health insurance than if there wasn't a health care overhaul. As you can imagine, Republicans are really just slamming this, saying it costs too much and it covers too few. But Democrats, Wolf, are saying it's an incomplete assessment of an incomplete proposal and they're confident they can cover many more Americans once they have a complete plan.

WOLF BLITZER (host): Because if they can't cover all 46 million uninsured Americans over the next 10 years, that's a setback, because a lot of folks are really assuming -- and this could be a wildly optimistic assumption -- that over the next 10 years, all Americans, if the president got his way, would have health care -- health insurance.

[...]

BLITZER: This CBO report, based on what Brianna is telling us, that could be an embarrassment for the White House.

ED HENRY (CNN senior White House correspondent): It could. I mean, the day started out pretty well for the president, because even though there had been all this talk about how the AMA as a group, as an organization, is against some of the plans to reform the system, the fact is the president got a very warm reception from the actual doctors at that convention in Chicago. That's a good start. But when you look at the report, Brianna is right to focus not just on the cost, but the net gain of how many people will get insurance. Sixteen million more people being insured, while a positive development, far short, as you noted, of the 46 million who are uninsured right now. And so, clearly, Republicans will jump on that, even though it's just a draft, it's an early estimate, there's a lot more work to be done on this legislation. The fact of the matter is, if it's going to cost this much money and potentially taxes are going to have to be raised to pay for it, and it's still going to leave 30 million people, potentially, without health insurance, it's probably going to be an uphill climb for this president.

Further, some segments, while noting that the analysis was preliminary, suggested that an analysis of the complete bill would show a higher price tag. From the June 15 edition of Fox News' Special Report:

BRET BAIER (host): The Congressional Budget Office analyzed the Kennedy plan as it stands now, and said it would increase deficits by $1 trillion. That's a number that scares a lot of people.

MORT KONDRACKE (Fox News contributor): Well, actually, I'll bet you that it's going to cost more. I mean, I think that they didn't do a complete analysis of the whole bill.

By contrast, there has been little coverage of the new CBO score since its July 2 release. From July 2 through July 6, only one segment -- a brief report on the July 2 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight by guest anchor Kitty Pilgrim -- reported that the CBO issued a new estimate of the updated bill:

PILGRIM: Senate Democrats have introduced a revised health care bill. They say it costs less than an earlier proposal. The Congressional Budget Office says the new plan will cost $611 billion over 10 years. The previous plan was estimated at $1 trillion. Now, Senate Democrats are also calling for a government-run insurance option and an annual fee on larger companies that offer coverage to their employees.

On several other occasions -- at least one on each network -- a segment reported or discussed the lower estimate but did not identify it as the product of a CBO analysis, instead attributing it to Senate Democrats.

According to the CBO's July 2 score of the HELP bill (released in part on July 1), under the legislation, 21 million fewer Americans would be uninsured in 2019 than under current law. In a July 1 letter to members of the HELP committee, publicly released the following day, HELP Committee Chairman Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) and Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) wrote that the "Congressional Budget Office has carefully reviewed our complete bill, and we are pleased to report that the CBO has scored it at $611.4 billion over 10 years, with the new coverage provisions scored at $597 billion" -- a cost they noted was a "significant reduction from earlier estimates." The preliminary score of the "complete bill" that the committee released stated that Title I of the bill would increase the deficit by $597 billion over 10 years.

In addition, CBO director Douglas W. Elmendorf explained in a July 2 letter to Kennedy about the score that the public option "did not have a substantial effect on the cost or enrollment projections, largely because the public plan would pay providers of health care at rates comparable to privately negotiated rates -- and thus was not projected to have premiums lower than those charged by private insurance plans in the exchanges."

By contrast, the initial CBO score of an incomplete version of the HELP bill -- which Elmendorf made clear did not include a public option or an employer mandate -- found that under the legislation, 17 million fewer Americans would be uninsured in 2019 than under current law, at a cost of approximately $1 trillion over 10 years.

Methodology

Media Matters tallied every segment on CNN, Fox News Channel, and MSNBC that featured a discussion or mention of the CBO's preliminary analysis of the HELP committee bill -- released during the day on June 15 -- from June 15 through June 16. We also tallied every segment that featured discussion of the CBO's analysis of the "complete bill" -- released in part the evening of July 1 -- from July 2 through July 6. The search string "CBO or Congressional Budget Office" was used. Using the expanded search string "CBO or Congressional Budget Office or Kennedy or Democrat and health!," we also tallied segments in which the new CBO estimate was mentioned or discussed but was attributed to Senate Democrats and not the CBO. Only segments that were available on the Nexis database were included.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by shaggles (July 07, 2009 6:12 pm ET)
      3  
      Well, of course. They can't report on it until a Republican criticizes it first. Then they'll be all over whatever tiny little part of it the Reps have a beef about.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Cheney2012 (July 08, 2009 7:52 am ET)
        3 3
        HA!! What a joke!

        The cost of the bill goes down 2 percent and now we can celebrate?

        Nice of the liars at Media Matters to stick that 'inconvenient truth' in near the end of this article.

        It has about the same impact as spitting in the ocean.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by louee (July 08, 2009 12:06 pm ET)
          3 1
          Your screen name is apt. What are you going for (or hoping for)here? You don't think we need healthcare reform? You hate the President? You hate all progressives? You like to sit back and bitch? What is it? You don't actually think a gobhead like Glenn Beck has any depth of certitude do you? Dude, turn him off!
          Report Abuse
        • Author by DougD (July 09, 2009 1:58 am ET)
             
          A 2.4% decrease is a significant savings, something one would expect conservatives to be interested in. To say its "like spitting in the ocean" is dishonest nonsense.

          Besides, the main point of the article was the extreme bias (15 to 1 reports) in covering these reports, along with the opportunistic reporting of the Fox "News" network.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by thejbomb65 (July 09, 2009 9:56 am ET)
             
          hey dick, nice to see you again.

          2 percent eh? 1 trillion compared to 600 billion......thats 2 percent?

          i mean i figured you would be thrilled the costs had come down......oh wait it was because it was done by democrats like that pariah ted kennedy. damn liberals cutting costs.....how dare they!
          Report Abuse
    • Author by GalaHGL (July 08, 2009 8:46 am ET)
      2 1
      The cost of the complete bill costs only about 60% of the original incomplete bill analysis. Liberals consider this a victory. The government claims there are about 46 million uninsured people. Under this plan that will increase our budget deficit by 600 billion dollars over the next ten years less than half of those people (21 million) will be covered. I find it funny that MMFA doesn't discuss the issue of adding another entitlement to our already financially wiped-out federal government under the guise of a government provided "right". They only complain that a more favorable analysis of this debacle didn't get a lot of press. I wish all the news outlets would run stories on the dangers of big central government, the power of individual liberty, the exceptionalism of this unique country and it's Constitution, and the need for personal responsibity to make it all work. I just hope none of this legislation passes. Because I would like to continue exercising my inalienable right to choose my own method of health care. And have the personal responsibility to provide health care for my self and my family without burdening my neighbors.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Tbone Slickens (July 08, 2009 9:46 am ET)
        1 1
        Ah-oh! You've gone and done it now. Talking about American exceptionalism, individual liberty, and personal responsibility! Those are anathema to the libs.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by GalaHGL (July 08, 2009 10:00 am ET)
            1
          ha ha Yea I know but i think those ideas are still held by a large majority of Americans
          Report Abuse
          • Author by louee (July 08, 2009 12:14 pm ET)
            1  
            You two live in la la land. I don't think you've actually checked who constitutes the majority of Americans. Most of us consider it a core value of American exceptionalism, individual liberty and personal responsibility to assure that all Americans can participate in the dream. And that requires healthcare for everyone, you selfish little nabobs. But that's just my opinion.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by solon (July 08, 2009 4:40 pm ET)
          2 1
          Obviously truth, reality and facts are anthema to cons like YOU.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by Appleboy (July 08, 2009 11:49 am ET)
        1  
        Total health expenditures per capita, 2003

        United States $5711
        Australia $2886
        Austria $2958
        Belgium $3044
        Canada $2998
        Denmark $2743
        Finland $2104
        France $3048
        Germany $2983
        Ireland $2466
        Italy $2314
        Japan $2249
        Netherlands $2909
        Norway $3769
        Sweden $2745
        United Kingdom $2317

        I believe all but one from the above list has universal health care. Guess which one? France pays about half of what the US does yet covers everyone, and has comparable, if not better, health care (#1 in the world according to 2000 World Health Organzitation).
        Report Abuse
      • Author by shaggles (July 08, 2009 12:50 pm ET)
           
        So you don't think health care should be a right?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by solon (July 08, 2009 4:44 pm ET)
        1  
        This isnt a political site. This is a conservative media watchdog site. If you want to see those political issued covered go to a political site. I think I have the personal responsibility to try to assure my neighbors dont DIE from lack of access to healthcare like 18,000 of my nieghbors a year DO. There isnt any reason there would be a loss of freedom issue in assuring all Americans have healthcare. Is Denmark unfree? Finland? England? Japan? They all have a national healthcare system. You are just repeating talking points that dont make sense. Obviously you dont CARE about your neighbor. You dont CARE who dies because they cant afford healthcare you make that clear. I do.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by MikeW67 (July 08, 2009 4:24 pm ET)
      1  
      Bottom line: 100 million Americans are now 1 illness away from financial disaster. That is 1/3 of the nation. If you lose your job, you are next.

      HEALTH SECURITY BILL OF RIGHTS, NOW!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by LIBERTY OR DEATH (July 08, 2009 7:28 pm ET)
        1
      want to know the truth about Barack Obama's healthcare plan? How about 118 million people switching their healthcare from the private sector to the "free" government option? Does that sound like it is going to provide much in the way of competition? No. But that's what the politicians keep claiming. Look no further than Great Britain to see what will happen when the government gets involved in healthcare.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by thejbomb65 (July 09, 2009 1:23 pm ET)
           
        and what oh wise one would be the problem if the government option was cheaper than private insurance, if both provided the same quality of care....of wait i know. cause it will destroy Big Pharma. nice to see that you care more about an industry than your fellow man.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by dobber123 (July 08, 2009 7:39 pm ET)
        1
      I am a person who dont have health coverage i have a family and i do need it but in my opion its not the goverment place to provide it for me futhermore i work in a small business and if taxes were not so high i no for a fact i would have it thru my job so insted of depending on the goverment to provide it the goverment should trust the people to do themselves and lower taxes so the companies could prvide it
      Report Abuse
      • Author by LuvLuLu (July 09, 2009 1:33 am ET)
           
        This is crazy talk. First off, they could not lower your small businesses taxes enough to allow them to afford to pay your insurance premiums. But the taxes that you and your small business employer pay right now help pay for the health care that people without health insurance already get. So you are paying for other people's health care right now.

        Look at AppleBoy's list above. Our nation will pay less per capita for univeral health insurance than we do now when we don't insure millions of Americans.

        So, you'd rather pay more money today, and not get health insurance, than pay less down the road and have health insurance?

        No, you don't "no (sic) for a fact" that if taxes were lower you'd have it through your employer. That's simply lies you've been told and lies you've believed.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by jamieth2000 (July 08, 2009 9:02 pm ET)
         
      I agree wholeheartedly that this is a site about the media and not about politics!

      Having said that, this report led me to look for information on the price tag of "universal" insurance.

      I have started looking for reports on how much is spent to cover uninsured health care and what the difference would be in the economy if people would be covered.

      http://www.kff.org/uninsured/upload/The-Cost-of-Care-for-the-Uninsured-What-Do-We-Spend-Who-Pays-and-What-Would-Full-Coverage-Add-to-Medical-Spending.pdf

      The above link is the first study I found. If I read this correctly, this would put back into the economy (people insured would spend, and general health care would be paid for) $103 billion a year(based on 2004 budget numbers and data). I'm not sure, if they've looked at current medical prices, or the reduced ones being negotiated. This study estimates it would cost $48.2bn a year to cover uninsured people in our country. Obviously, by this study, even if it costs $59.7bn a year, the growth to the economy is is 40% greater. I will keep looking, but I expect that taxes, new jobs, more spending, taxes, new jobs, etc. will have an impact on the deficit AND the debt. Making it clearer what President Obama was saying about how much damage will be done to our economy in future years with out health care reform.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by galileonardo (July 09, 2009 5:09 am ET)
         
      I do not claim to have the answers on this but the government health plan is downright scary in my opinion. Despite claims to the contrary, socialized medicine presents horrors not often discussed. Take a look at these stories and then tell me you want some board making decisions about the best care for you instead of your doctor.

      http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92916560
      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8117561.stm
      http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/healthcare/ukwheelchair.html
      http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=aYPuCa1iuxG8

      I live in Massachusetts and we now have a system that insures over 95% of our citizens without the public option carrot. It is admittedly bleeding money, but the system allowed me to afford a legitimate plan for my family through a traditional insurer whereas a similar plan had previously been unaffordable.
      Report Abuse