Quick Fact: Carlson advanced baseless claim that health care reform will "add" to "the debt"
On the November 18th Fox & Friends, co-host Gretchen Carlson advanced the baseless claim that health care reform "is going to add a lot of money to the debt."
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.
From the November 18 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
CARLSON: Yeah but, in both Virginia and New Jersey, both of those states went to Republican governors. The number one concern from voters at the exit polls was the economy by a huge margin. So, a lot of people are scratching their heads and saying, if the president can actually say that we might actually enter into a double dip recession, if people lose confidence in the U.S. economy in a way that could lead to that, in other words by keep adding to the debt--a lot of people argue that's what health care reform is going to do exactly, that it is going to add a lot of money to the debt. I found that a very interesting comment by the president.
Fact: CBO estimated House health bill would reduce federal budget deficit $109 billion through 2019
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 yield a net reduction in federal budget deficits of $109 billion over the 2010-2019 period." CBO also found 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]."
Fact: CBO estimated Senate Finance health bill would reduce federal budget deficit by $81 billion through 2019
While the Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid has not released a proposal, CBO found that the Senate Finance Committee's health care bill, America's Healthy Future Act of 2009, "would result in a net reduction in federal budget deficits of $81 billion over the 2010-2019 period." CBO also found that after 2019, "the collective effect of those provisions would probably be continued reductions in federal budget deficits."
Yes, indeed the CBO currently forecasts a surplus over the next 10 years...but you can liken it to polling data...a snap shot in time...of this exact moment in time.
It's a fact that future events and legislation will change the outcome of the CBO projections...rendering them meaningless as a predictor of future cash flows. Using the CBO numbers as predictors is like using a poll conducted today to determine the outcome of the 2012 presidential election...useless.
In 2001 the CBO projected a whopping $5.3 trillion in budget surpluses for the years 2002-2011...including a $710 billion surplus for the year 2009.
The CBO is not to be blamed because they can't predict world events or future legislation but that inability renders their projections pretty worthless.
History has proven time and time again that promises by congress about the rewards and spending of major programs has been over-promising and over-spending.
You know it...I know it...and mmfa knows it...and that's what makes their continued reliance on CBO projections to pump up support for healthcare reform misleading at best and dishonest at worst.
The second thing to do is google up reports on the CBO.
And I gave you a prime example of history has proven with the budget report cited above...which can be found at the cbo website.
Dig in.
Also, your example regarding the 2001 CBO projected surplus of a $5.3 billion over the years 2002-2011 needs a comment. In August 2002 the CBO issued another 10 year forcast and "projected substantial deficits in the near term and a net surplus over the same ten-year period of only $336 billion". Still not a perect prediction but it's going in the right direction. Also, I would think predicting 10 year surplus/deficit numbers is bit more complicated than working the numbers of a single bill.
CBO does the best they can given the numbers handed them. They're not perfect but I trust them more than I do Gretchen.
And an even more relevant point that I made below is that if the CBO, using lots of info, is worthless, what is Carlson, who has nothing to back up her assertion?
And the 2001 projection from the CBO? Guess who messed that up? Bush and Osama bin Laden, not the CBO.
No one is saying (to Wesley or anyone else) that they can guarantee their projections. The issue is that one group, the CBO, is using real numbers and reasonable, realistic assumptions to come to conclusions. Gretchen Carlson is using her personal political preconceived notions, as is Wesley, to smear the CBO and Obama. And that's the problem, of course - that a legit news organization is pushing a false and baseless conservative meme while still maintaining that they are fair and balanced.
That's fair enough.
I'm not trashing the work done by the CBO. Their task is virtually impossible...since they can't predict future actions by congress or other economic events.
Your weatherman analogy is pretty apt on this subject. The CBO does a nice job of predicting the weather tomorrow...but a lousy job of predicting the weather next week or next month or next year.
Their projections can be useful when comparing several versions of bills concerning the same legislation...but utterly worthless when projecting the actual financial outcome of proposed legislation.
I'm not going to agree with you that CBO predictions are worthless when it comes to actual financial outcomes, you simply have not shown me the data to prove your point.
I do agree with you that they have a very difficult job and I believe their conclusions should not be taken as gospel. But "worthless"? My guess is that's a bit strong.
That's the whole point that you ignored in your first post unfairly smearing the CBO!
He makes the mistake of not distinguishing between valuing individual programs and the budget on the whole to discredit the CBO. For example, the value of the health care bill is not dependent on world events like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan like the overall budget is. Neither is this bill strongly dependent on income taxes since the bracket that it hit tends to recover from recessions relatively rapidly and you can make up the difference.
Also, if you actually read the CBO report he is referring to and dig into the data you'll find the CBO found that the deficit projections for the next 10-years are actually more than $5.5 trillion once you include retirement funds like SS, Medicare Hospital Trust etc. They excluded those programs to get the numbers he is referring too so Congress could see the impact of their own legislation independent of those programs.
Anyway, the cost of a particular bill like this is much less dependent on world events like wars or economic conditions then the budget on the whole so his point is moot. The CBO values for projects like this rather than something like revenue from income taxes are much more reliable because they are less dependent on abnormal conditions.
But using the infamous "they" to suggest that it WILL add to the debt is okay?
Atleast the CBO report is grounded in fact, unlike the BB's assertion.
Carlson's claim is baseless. 100% baseless. She has no projections to base her assertion upon. All current projections say that it will lower the debt. It's deficit neutral.
If you think that the CBO's projections are worthless, despite the fact that they have facts and figures to back them up, then what must Carlson's statement be, without any facts or figures to back her up? And remember, that's what this posting by MMFA is all about, dum-dum. It's not about your misunderstanding about what a projection is.
Her attack is specious, and so is yours, as always on topics like this, Wesley.
The quality of the prediction doesn't change because the program expanded. The prediction was based upon a set of known values. If you change those known values, it doesn't make the first prediction less accurate. It means that you need to use the new values to make a new prediction, but it doesn't affect the accuracy of the original prediction!
But I did a couple of searches, and the reason you didn't provide any evidence is because it didn't happen.
No one trashed the CBO that I could see.
A lot of people also think that the world is going to end in 2012. Doesn't mean it's gonna happen.
And those people aren't being realistic or reasonable. That's the problem.
It's not just giving insurance to many more people. It's the savings to counties and charities and hospitals and the federal government by not having to treat people who could see a doctor in an ER instead. It's savings offered to the Feds by hospitals and insurance companies because they know that they won't be having to subsidize the costs of treating those patients. It's taxing couples making $1 million a year or single people making $500,000 a little more to help pay for this. It's getting rid of the profit incentives from Medicare Advantage, a boondoggle for insurance companies put into affect by Republicans on Congress the last time they were in control of that legislative body.
It's too bad that you seem incapable of thinking in any way besides black and white.
And you still haven't made a single cogent argument here. Virtually everything you've ever posted here has been rightwing nonsense.
If you aren't educated enough to have a reasonable discussion on the known factual information, then you shouldn't be trying to educate us!!!
It starts with the mindset that health care, in developed nations, is essential to a high quality of life. (Plus its good for business).
Not to the nutjobs. They can't get over the false image of the welfare queens and freddie freeloaders getting something for nothing.
On the other hand, it's been estimated that 600,000 Americans will travel aboard for surgery this year.
To summarize, if you're wealthy you get good health care in the U.S, if you're not you don't.
The study reports that outbound medical tourism will reach 1.6 million by 2012. Inbound (people coming to US) will reach 561,000 by 2017.
In 2007 750,000 Americans traveled abroad for outbound medical care. In 2009 because of the recession only 648,000 did so.
And I don't just use MMFA as a resource, you fool. And you've proven over and over again that you don't understand simple things and can't reason and resolve to figure stuff out.
Reading comprehension is almost as uncommon as common sense, it appears.
And no one has said that we should stop looking for fraud. I understand that in rightwing circles, you can't walk and chew gum at the same time, but our side can.
And yeah, if you only have your opinion to back what you're saying up, then it's a baseless claim.