Fox's Wallace says "real price tag" of House bill is $1.05 trillion, ignores that this cost is more than offset
On Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace stated that "the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says the real price tag [of the House health care reform bill] is $1.05 trillion." However, when accounting for the bill's savings and revenue provisions, the CBO analysis concluded that enacting the bill "would result in a net reduction in federal budget deficits of $104 billion" over 10 years.
Wallace: CBO "says the real price tag is $1.05 trillion"
Wallace reported only on CBO's estimate of bill's gross cost, rather than its net cost. Wallace stated of the bill: "Democrats say the total price tag is $894 billion -- that's under President Obama's ceiling. But the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says the real price tag is $1.05 trillion." Wallace also showed a graphic presenting cost estimates that exclude the bill's Medicare savings and high-income surcharge provisions:
But Wallace ignored CBO's conclusion that bill offsets coverage costs, reduces deficit
CBO: Bill "would result in a net reduction in federal budget deficits of $104 billion." CBO stated that the cost of the coverage expansions that Wallace reported "would be more than offset by the combination of other spending changes, which CBO estimates would save $426 billion, and receipts resulting from the income tax surcharge on high-income individuals and other provisions, which [the Joint Committee on Taxation] and CBO estimate would increase federal revenues by $572 billion" over 10 years.
From CBO's October 29 analysis of the House bill:
Estimated Budgetary Impact of H.R. 3962
According to CBO and JCT's assessment, enacting H.R. 3962 would result in a net reduction in federal budget deficits of $104 billion over the 2010--2019 period (see Table 1). In the subsequent decade, the collective effect of its provisions would probably be slight reductions in federal budget deficits. Those estimates are all subject to substantial uncertainty.
The estimate includes a projected net cost of $894 billion over 10 years for the proposed expansions in insurance coverage. That net cost itself reflects a gross total of $1,055 billion in subsidies provided through the exchanges (and related spending), increased net outlays for Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and tax credits for small employers; those costs are partly offset by $167 billion in collections of penalties paid by individuals and employers. On balance, other effects on revenues and outlays associated with the coverage provisions add $6 billion to their total cost.
Over the 2010--2019 period, the net cost of the coverage expansions would be more than offset by the combination of other spending changes, which CBO estimates would save $426 billion, and receipts resulting from the income tax surcharge on high-income individuals and other provisions, which JCT and CBO estimate would increase federal revenues by $572 billion over that period. [CBO, 10/29/09]
CBO expects House bill to continue to reduce deficits beyond 2019. CBO stated in its analysis that after 2019, the added revenues and cost savings are projected to grow slightly more rapidly than the cost of the coverage expansions. CBO further stated that "CBO expects that the legislation would slightly reduce federal budget deficits in that decade relative to those projected under current law -- with a total effect during that decade that is in a broad range between zero and one-quarter percent of GDP."
Hey Rocky! Watch me pull a number out of my butt!
Again? That trick never works!
At least with the C students that watch Fox News and vote Republican against their own economic interests!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Who's the more foolish - the fool or the fool who follows him?" ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
But wait!!!!! Isn't Medicare a SOCIALIST program????????
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/adventures-in-old-age/200908/medicare-is-socialism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FzNTB1qtFA
Are you saying we should not cut a socialist program???
What are you, some kind of socialist?????
Well, Rony Raygun sure put up the red scare of socialistic agendas when Medicare was debated. You remember the glory days of Ronny, right?
Let's see....
On one hand, you wave your arms in terror of the socialists pushing health care, then you try to defend another socialistic program.
You trolls can't even get your arguments straight. It keeps changing so fast, you can't keep up with yourselves any more.
So, for the small part of the population that would be covered by the public option, that part is paid for by premiums too, just like medicare.
But for trolls, no matter what I or anyone writes here, you'll throw something back that contradicts what you threw last week or last month.
Trolls are time-wasters - especially when they contradict themselves.
Nice try, but you got caught in a contradiction.
My apologies to you then, if you honestly thought that's what they guy was saying. Perhaps I misunderstood the meaning.
A post of "...exclude the bill's Medicare savings" aka, CUTS" can certainly be taken as the typical response heard before from Republicans scaring retired people that Medicare benefits are going to be cut.
If someone is against socialistic programs, which we hear often from Limburger and Fox, then they must be against Medicare. So it gets cut (which it won't), why would they care?
Nothing that I know of will cut benefits in the Medicare program. This has been addressed over and over again.
So, maybe I read the original post wrong, and misunderstood your intent. That makes me ignorant, or even stupid. But not a liar.
I'm not aware of an overall cut to Medicare per se, but I do think there's rightful concern over a cut in reimbursements to the doctors and some services. Again though, we're not REALLY going to know until the final bill is done and passed and signed.
In 1965, during the origianl debate over medicare part A, they estimated that by 1990 it would cost $9B, the actual cost was $67B. In 1967, they estimated the TOTAL cost at $12B while the actual cost was $110B. In 1987, congress estimated the cost of medicaid DSH at $1B, the actual cost was $17B.
So what is the point here? There is a history, and I could go on with many more examples, of vast underestimation of the cost of healthcare related entitlement programs. And this program is going to be no different.
Fact is, the numbers had to be skewed by collecting revenue for several years before anyone even gets any benefits in 2013. And thats a whole other conversation there. If this is such a "crisis", then why does it take until 2013 to get anyone benefits? I think it was a crisis in 1993 also. There would be no way the dems could even come close to paying for this whole fraud without collecting money for a few years before it starts giving benefits. But what happens when the headstart money is gone? I gave you three example earlier. The picture is pretty clear.
So how much is too much to spend to keep our seniors healthy and alive?
How much is too much to spend now to prevent 45,000 deaths every year?
Isn't saving some lives a benefit, albeit one that you can't put a dollar amount on?
That in itself is a hyperbolic oversimplification.
I guess that makes you a liberal.
Factcheck.org has verified this issue. There have been just under 100 surveys that have all come to the conclusion that not having insurance is deadly.
And if hurting our economy is so important to you, then you should support this reform, because this is the least costly option that anyone has offered!
And the rich people have plenty of money.
They used to be taxed a lot more, and our country had unprecedented growth during that time. Germany has a ton of billionaires, and their rich people are highly taxed. There's plenty of money out there held by rich people. They aren't going to be seriously hurt by tax increases. Don't you go worrying your little heart about them, dearie.
As I stated earlier, if even one person dies without proper care that it's too many. You said 4500 die each year with no insurance. The numbers I found on the Center for American Progress (their nice and liberal) were actually 18K, 4x more. If we break the numbers down, of the 47 million uninsured about 24 million are either illegal immigrants for which tax payers should not have to foot the bill (their own country should pay for their healthcare), are already eligible for some form of government program i.e. CHIPS, medicare or medicaid or make more than $84K per year and should likely be able to afford their own care. So if you take half of the 18K that die each year, that leaves us with 9K, still double your number, that's way too many. So why don't we focus on getting those people, approximately 24 million people, some affordable healthcare and getting it to them sooner than later. The question begs, what about the 18K per year that will die between now and 2013, the first year any benefits will be offered? Funny you didn't mention that. We can sacrifice 54K people so that we can make the budget numbers work to get it passed right. I mean, its for the greater good. Funny how this is such a crisis, but nothing really happens for 3 years. And mind you, I'm not arguing that we don't need healthcare reform, just not this reform.
When we talk about saving money, common sense tells your that you cannot provide healthcare to 47 million MORE people and save money. And 47 million is a generous number as most estimates say upto 17 million will still be without coverage. The CBO even said that the likely savings from the medicare cuts throught the medicare advisory board would only add up to $2B and that was maybe, they said it may be nothing. And ALL of those saving, if they materialize at all, will be between 2016 and 2019. Well it's easy to look like your saving money if you collect tax revenue for 7 years. A similar advisory board, which will make recommendation on what rates should be charged and what care should be provided for various diagnosis, was actually signed into law by George Bush but not funded by the democrats..oops. Maybe we could have had some reform before now, but that wouldn't have been as politically beneficial. You couldn't let a republican get any credit. So whether or not this reform saves one dime is debatable depending on where you get your info. You get yours from what the democrats say and from what I would consider liberal sources, I get mine from my republican congressman and from what you would consider conservative sources. What I do know from actually reading HR 3200 and one of the senate bills, is that I didn't see anything that really help curb healthcare cost. There is nothing that addresses the overutilization of the current systems, there is nothing to address frivolous lawsuits which cause doctors to practice defensive medicine and over order diagnotic studies and there is nothing to address doctors who own equity stakes in hospitals or diagnostic clinics who refer patients to themselves. All three items above are huge sources of overspending in medicine. The democrat who are beholden to trial lawyers, won't include tort reform and my congressman told me that the amendments to prevent self referal were removed to secure endorsemnet from the AMA. So it the goal really to cut healthcare cost, it doesn't look like it when you purposely exclude ammendments that will provide REAL cost savings.
Finally, and what will be most unpopular, is taxing the rich. Whether you want to call it a talking point or not, I don't really care, it is in fact wealth redistribution. What gives you or the government the right to take money away from one individual and give it to another. That is exactly what this is. I am a Houston firefighter who works two jobs to support my family, so I am by no means rich. But I do think that people ought to be able to keep what they earn and continually raising the taxes on the richest Americans has proven to not work. What it really boils down to is class envy. You're not rich so you think you shouldn't have to pay for anything and the rich should. It's way more popular and easy to make the rich pay more taxes, even though the top 25% already pay 96% of the taxes.
This democratic plan at healthcare reform is not a real attempt to control healthcare cost but instead a way of providing an entitlement to the middle class that will help lock up a future voting block. It is an attempt to destroy the healthcare industry via a public option which sets the groundwork for a single payer system and anticompetitive practices against the insurance industry. We need healthcare reform in this county to help control the rising cost of healthcare and to provide coverage to the uninsured, but we certainly don't need THIS highly partisan reform.
Actually, Medicare would be more of a single-payer system. Socialism would be when the doctors and nurses for the government. Like the VA - that would be socialism or socialized medicine. Socialism is when the government controls the means of production. But, then I don't expect you to understand the difference.
You wanna talk about pulling numbers out of an oriface. Where are these cost savings coming from? Other than an attempt to quell medicare and medicaid fraud, the rest is a bunch of hocus pocus. So you cut $500B from medicares already anemic reimbursement rates, well what gets cut? What treatments get denied? Better yet, whose treatment gets denied? Of the house and senate versions of the bill that I read, there was NOTHING to address overutilization. Nothing to address doctors owning hosptials or MRI clinics and then referring patients to themselves. But, when private insurance attempts to reduce overutilization they are demonized as profiteers, even though the insurance industry is among the least profitable.
Health insurer profits not so fat
So then what will the government do? They will have to run every exam and test through a pre-authorization process, just like private insurers do. And, in order to cut cost, they will have to deny treatments and procedures. But will they be able to deny enough to actually CUT the deficit? Do you actually believe that the government can help insure 47 million extra people and the CUT the deficit? Just for one second try and check you liberal bias at the door and ask yourself if any of these promises that Pelosis and Reed are feeding you make any logical sense.
Why is it that people who don't know what they're talking about feel the need to come here and try to educate us?
Go, find out where the savings come from (hint, look up Medicare Advantage and the private health insurance profits from that program) and then come back here and bring something to the table besides rightwing talking points.
I'm not the one who got pwned. That would be you.
And no, I won't educate you. If you wanted the info, you'd already have it.
Chris Wallace lied about the real cost.
You are uninformed and ill-educated about the cost savings here. Yet you came here and tried to educate us, and that's a ridiculous thing for you to have done since you clearly haven't learned enough about this issue to educate us.
No, we're talking about the current estimates. I'm talking about the same "costs" that Wallace was talking about, and he's lying about them because he's only listing a "cost" that's offset by savings, thus resulting in the "real cost".
And you, you're a dishonest person who tries to nitpick when he can't rebut the facts.
Chris Wallace was the liar.
Maybe you need a refresher on the definition of the word lie. It's falsehood that's known to be false.
If we don't know what the eventual cost is going to be, and we say it's going to be $894 Billion (or whatever dollar amt we say), and it turns out to be $1.2 Trillion, did we LIE? Nope. Did Chris Wallace still lie? Yes.
So no, I'm not a liar. But you are, since, if you have half a brain, you know that one can't lie about what the future cost of this program is going to be!!!
And you called me a liar, knowing that, so that would make you and Chris Wallace the liars!
Clearly you don't want it.
What it appears you want is to make a fool of yourself, so you just keep on keeping on.
You're very entertaining.
The Worst Bill Ever
Epic new spending and taxes, pricier insurance, rationed care, dishonest accounting: The Pelosi health bill has it all.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703399204574505423751140690.html
This needs to be stopped!!!
"This needs to be stopped!!!"
I agree. Complete distortions of the truth from the WSJ needs to be stopped!!!
If you want to learn about this topic, you could have already done so. You don't want to, and can't convince us that you do simply by asking us to educate you.
You wouldn't have linked to an opinion piece and called it a "good article to read".
You request - "Explain exactly what the distortions fo the truth were"
The subject of this page, to start. Or, do you think MMFA distorts also? If so, where are the distortions? Why are you even here, if the liberal distortions bother you so much?
Another example, WSJ: "Democrats have dumped any pretense of genuine bipartisan 'reform'"
Not true: http://mediamatters.org/research/200910290036
(I know, it's a MMFA link, but you know how to drill down via the links provided on that page, don't you? Just follow the links, if you were really interested.)
This is an "op ed" piece. An opinion piece. Not even a "news" article. The tone of the article is "gloom and doom", and extremely emotional. Op eds tend to be a bit slanted at times.
Here are a couple of links you can review on your own time. You don't need to waste mine.
http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AHCAA-MythvFact-102909.pdf
http://edlabor.house.gov/blog/2009/10/affordable-health-care.shtml
Because they don't know the difference between opinion and news. That's been proven by how Fox merges the two into "opinionated news". Their viewers are just too ignorant to know the difference any more.