About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Quick fact: Washington Times claims "official" "price tag" for House health care bill is $1.1 trillion

November 10, 2009 7:43 am ET — 13 Comments

In a story about "fuzzy math" on "unfunded programs" in the House health care bill, The Washington Times said the "official" "price tag" of the bill is $1.1 trillion. The Times only reported on the Congressional Budget Office's estimate of the bill's gross cost, rather than its net cost, which CBO estimated was "$891 billion over ten years."

From the November 10 Washington Times article:

The official $1.1 trillion price tag for the House Democrats' health care bill excludes dozens of unfunded programs that could drive up costs when future congresses look to fund them.

Republicans said the health care bill includes two dozen programs whose funding is listed as "such sums as may be necessary." That amounts to legislative jargon, they said, for "We'll bill you later."

The list of projects ranges from the "No child left unimmunized against influenza" project to 10 programs in the Indian health care system. There are also programs to encourage people to go into nursing and to spur states to restrain medical-malpractice lawsuits.

The tactic is far from new and has been used for years by Republicans and Democrats alike. The health reform examples are just the latest of what has become known as "fuzzy math" - the sort of budgeting that has been drawing extra scrutiny as the economy sputters, federal spending balloons and deficits deepen.

Fact: CBO estimated net cost of bill is $891 billion over 10 years and would reduce the deficit

CBO found that the health care reform bill that passed the House on November 7, the Affordable Health Care for America Act (H.R. 3962), would have "a projected net cost of $891 billion over 10 years for the proposed expansions in insurance coverage." CBO also found that the bill "would yield a net reduction in federal budget deficits of $109 billion over the 2010-2019 period." CBO estimated that in the decade after 2019, "the legislation would slightly reduce federal budget deficits ... 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 [gross domestic product]."

— D.C.P.
Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by Nobodyputsbabyinacorner (November 10, 2009 8:18 am ET)
        1
      Of course government never spends more than budget! Our government is operated so efficiently that I wouldn't be surprised if the cost was actually less than half of the $891 billion.

      Give me a break!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by wesley (November 10, 2009 11:15 am ET)
      1 3
      This attempt at rebuttal is a complete whiff by mmfa.

      -- the House Democrats' health care bill excludes dozens of unfunded programs that could drive up costs when future congresses look to fund them..."We'll bill you later." -- WashTimes

      The CBO clearly backs the WashTimes claim:

      -- These estimates are all subject to substantial uncertainty --

      -- CBO has not completed a comprehensive estimate of the discretionary costs --

      -- CBO has not completed a comprehensive estimate of the legislation's potential impact on spending that is subject to future appropriations action --

      mmfa barks at the WashTimes for reporting gross spending instead of net spending by ignoring the revenue side. mmfa then laughingly proclaims a net savings on the legislation...by ignoring the unknown and future costs on the spending side.

      Yep, a real hypocritical whiff.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by baddestbob (November 10, 2009 12:03 pm ET)
           
        what does it matter? where were all the fiscal conservatives when the bush administration put us into massive debt by conducting two wars, one uncalled for and the other woefully mismanaged, giving huge tax cuts to corporations and wealthy individuals, and giving drug companies carte blanche with their medicare/medicaid plan? this administration is trying to do something for the united states' citizens and lo and behold these big spenders all of a sudden develop a conscience.

        to use an old repuublican line: "if you don't like it, move to another country".
        Report Abuse
      • Author by roundhouse (November 10, 2009 2:13 pm ET)
           
        Every budget, every fiscal forecast, is subject to substantial uncertainty. If you go out and start cutting taxes all over the place, cutting funding for public programs, yeah that is the kind of thing that could upset the way these programs are supposed to work.

        The uncertainty lies in not knowing who will have stewardship of these programs. Will it be anti-government conservatives bent on slashing and burning everything in their path on a crusade to show government can't work? (especially when they're running it) Or will it responsible liberals who understand the importance of fostering strong public programs in the name of broad and sustained prosperity?
        Report Abuse
    • Author by roundhouse (November 10, 2009 1:24 pm ET)
         
      These hacks going around acting like they are concerned about spending are hysterical. They don't care about the deficit, not a bit.

      Shoot man, most folks wouldn't bat an eye if congress expanded the deficit but stabilized the labor market and the economy.

      Even if Obama lowered the deficit, it ain't like these hyperventilating right wing economic extremists would cooperate or give the guy any credit. I think the Republican attacks and opposition to Clinton despite his meticulously balanced budget says everything that needs to be said about how Republicans politicize the deficit and operate in absolute hypocrisy.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by alerted (November 10, 2009 2:51 pm ET)
         
      Finally some truth on the real agenda of the Obama Administration.

      Confessions of an ObamaCare Backer

      The typical argument for ObamaCare is that it will offer better medical care for everyone and cost less to do it, but occasionally a supporter lets the mask slip and reveals the real political motivation. So let's give credit to John Cassidy, part of the left-wing stable at the New Yorker, who wrote last week on its Web site that "it's important to be clear about what the reform amounts to."

      Mr. Cassidy is more honest than the politicians whose dishonesty he supports. "The U.S. government is making a costly and open-ended commitment," he writes. "Let's not pretend that it isn't a big deal, or that it will be self-financing, or that it will work out exactly as planned. It won't. What is really unfolding, I suspect, is the scenario that many conservatives feared. The Obama Administration . . . is creating a new entitlement program, which, once established, will be virtually impossible to rescind."

      Why are they doing it? Because, according to Mr. Cassidy, ObamaCare serves the twin goals of "making the United States a more equitable country" and furthering the Democrats' "political calculus." In other words, the purpose is to further redistribute income by putting health care further under government control, and in the process making the middle class more dependent on government. As the party of government, Democrats will benefit over the long run.

      This explains why Nancy Pelosi is willing to risk the seats of so many Blue Dog Democrats by forcing such an unpopular bill through Congress on a narrow, partisan vote: You have to break a few eggs to make a permanent welfare state. As Mr. Cassidy concludes, "Putting on my amateur historian's cap, I might even claim that some subterfuge is historically necessary to get great reforms enacted."

      No wonder many Americans are upset. They know they are being lied to about ObamaCare, and they know they are going to be stuck with the bill.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by roundhouse (November 10, 2009 3:29 pm ET)
           
        Unpopular bill? Whatever.

        Look, everytime progressives tell the true story about how government can effect positive change in people's lives, without being a stifling presence, you anti-tax morons lose. You lose because people get it. Government has a positive role to play in protecting and empowering people.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by boulderhippy (November 10, 2009 5:10 pm ET)
            1
          Your last sentence is an oxymoron. With protection you lose power.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by roundhouse (November 12, 2009 3:27 am ET)
               
            Seriously?

            boulderhippy? what a joke.

            We all know what a bunch of spoiled right wing, Christian fundie brats reside in Boulder, CO. Change your handle to trust fund baby and tell the truth. If you had to actually work a day in your life, you would cry about it to your daddy.

            Empowerment arises from protection from exploitation.


            Report Abuse
      • Author by wesley (November 10, 2009 4:07 pm ET)
          1
        alerted...thanks for the link and the great post.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by SPAllen-Portland (November 11, 2009 11:55 am ET)
           
        I suggest readers access Cassidy's entire article. He is very much in favor of changing the health care system and getting it in line with every other advanced country in the world. I applaud Cassidy's work to provide clarity. Too bad there wasn't more of this during the run up to the invasion of Iraq and isn't more of it now as we decide to expand the war in Afghanistan. Where would you rather have your tax dollars spent? Helping your fellow citizens or waging war?
        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.