USA Today falsely claims "estimated cost of a health care overhaul" is $1 trillion
A USA Today article reported that some elderly opponents of health care reform "fear the estimated cost of a health care overhaul, generally pegged for the first 10 years at $1 trillion, would lead to cuts" in Medicare, and then quoted "a former state representative" saying, "It's going to bankrupt this country." In fact, contrary to the article's claim that health care reform would "cost" $1 trillion, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has found that the only complete bill to be given a cost estimate "would result in a net increase in the federal budget deficit of $239 billion over the 2010-2019 period."
From the August 12 USA Today article:
Many of the opponents [at President Obama's August 11 town hall meeting in Portsmouth, New Hampshire] were elderly people on Medicare who fear the estimated cost of a health care overhaul, generally pegged for the first 10 years at $1 trillion, would lead to cuts in the popular program. "We don't have any money," said Sam Cataldo, 72, a former state representative. "It's going to bankrupt this country."
Despite lower CBO estimate, media repeatedly claim House health bill would "cost" $1 trillion
CBO estimated House health care reform bill would increase deficit by $239 billion -- not $1 trillion. In its July 17 cost estimate of the bill as introduced, CBO explained that its "estimate reflects a projected 10-year cost of the bill's insurance coverage provisions of $1,042 billion, partly offset by net spending changes that CBO estimates would save $219 billion over the same period, and by revenue provisions that [the Joint Committee on Taxation] estimates would increase federal revenues by about $583 billion over those 10 years." CBO thus concluded the legislation "would result in a net increase in the federal budget deficit of $239 billion over the 2010-2019 period."
Numerous media figures and outlets falsely claim bill would cost $1 trillion. In an August 3 article, the Associated Press falsely claimed that "even the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says" health reform bills "with the elements Obama wants would add around $1 trillion to the deficit over the next 10 years." On the August 2 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, NPR's Mara Liasson asserted that the House bill "has a $1 trillion price tag over 10 years," and host Chris Wallace replied by suggesting that Liasson's statement was "true." During the July 27 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, CNBC host Maria Bartiromo falsely asserted that the health care reform proposal under consideration in Congress would cost a "trillion dollars over 10 years." A July 28 New York Times article falsely reported that the House health care reform bill is estimated to cost "$1 trillion over 10 years." During the July 29 edition of Fox News' Hannity, Fox News political contributor Karl Rove claimed that House Democrats were "planning on a 1 trillion, 420 billion -- 420 million dollar price tag of additional spending over the next 10 years."
USA Today identifies man warning of national bankruptcy only as a "former state representative"
USA Today did not note that Cataldo is a Republican. Cataldo, who USA Today identified as "a former state representative" and quoted as saying that health care reform is "going to bankrupt this country," served in the New Hampshire House of Representatives as a Republican. He is currently treasurer for the Strafford County Republican Committee.
Speaking of costs, in 1967 when Medicare was started, the projected cost by 1990 was estimated to be $12 billion - the actual cost in 1990 was $120 billion. The projections were off by a mere factor of 10!
In addition, Medicare expanded what was covered, so it's not an apples to apples comparison. We'd need to know what Medicare costs in 1990 were to cover only those things covered in 1967 to get a true picture of how well the projections worked.
It looks more like an attempt to divert or derail. But you would never do that, would you?
I heard De Parle today say that a 'public option' is 'on the table.' Without a public option, they can't achieve their goal of controlling that portion of the economy. I doubt that the final draft will be without it.
First thing...this is a helluva long way from being deficit neutral...as Pres.Obama promised.
Second thing...mmfa, like most everyone else keeps focusing on the 10 yr. projections by the CBO. Even if you believe these projections to be true...and I don't...the deficit explodes at an alarming rate in years 6-10.
Looking at the trend lines for years 2010-2019 it is easy to see the "net" cost to the budget to be 1 to 1.5 trillion dollars in the second 10 years.
We don't need to debate the merits of the democrat's proposed healthcare plans. No matter the intentions...it's a plan that we can't afford now and won't ever be able to afford.
It demonstrably has nothing to do with improving health care, but rather is a power grab to increase government encroachment on individual freedoms. The authors of these bills all assume that the government is better able to manage our life choices than we are. The very foundations of the bills are antithetical to the twin concepts of individual liberty and limited government on which this nation was founded.
How is regulating the Health Care industry, an encroachment on individual Freedom; especially the public option? Seems to be more of an anti-monoply measure. Aren't monoplies even colluded ones, anti-thetical to Capitalism and competition? This is the great thing about Regulations and Regulatory Committiees.
Wasn't the founding of America, the creation of a new Government; which ensures individual freedoms? Since when has protecting consumers and ensuring that citizens are not exploited, limiting liberty. Is it not the opposite.
Sounds like you dabble in the Double-Speak, or you're just simply re-hashing the euphemisms from the Rick Scotts of HCA -- Medicare Criminal. One thing for sure, you are not for individual rights. Seems more like Bushism.
Thank God for Government.