"It's baaaaack!" Fox returns to falsely suggesting public option will not "save us a lot of money"
Fox & Friends repeatedly falsely suggested that the public option will not "save us a lot of money." In fact, according to a July 22 report from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the "public plan" would "reduce the federal budget deficit by about $15 billion" in 2020 and would save "about $68 billion" through 2020.
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.
Fox responds with disbelief to "Democrats ... saying" public option will save money
Doocy and Kilmeade falsely suggest public option will not "save us a lot of money." On the July 23 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-hosts Steve Doocy and Brian Kilmeade both falsely suggested that the public option would not save the country money:
DOOCY: Meanwhile, remember the public option? Gone, right? Nope, it's baaaaaack! Democrats pushing it again, saying it's going to save us a lot of money.
Later in the show, Kilmeade said:
KILMEADE: If you don't succeed, try, try again. Democrats bringing the public option back from the dead. Only this time they claim it's going to save money.
In fact, CBO projects that the public option would save "about $68 billion" through 2020. In a July 22 letter to Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA), chairman of the House Ways and Means health subcommittee, CBO released its analysis of the budgetary impact of adding the "public plan" option to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act:
This letter responds to your request for an analysis of a specific proposal to add a "public plan" to the options available through the health insurance exchanges that will be established in 2014 under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or PPACA.
[...]
CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimate that the proposal would reduce federal budget deficits through 2019 by about $53 billion. That estimate includes a $37 billion reduction in exchange subsidies and a $27 billion increase in tax revenues that would result from changes in employment-based coverage, partly offset by an $11 billion increase in costs for providing tax credits to small employers. (The proposal would have minimal effects on other outlays and revenues related to the insurance coverage provisions of PPACA.) The bulk of those effects would occur in the second half of the decade; the savings estimated for 2019 are about $14 billion. Although CBO and JCT have not yet extended to 2020 the models they use to estimate insurance coverage, the proposal would probably reduce the federal budget deficit by about $15 billion in that year, bringing the total budgetary savings through 2020 to about $68 billion.
Fox previously advanced false claims that the public option would increase the deficit. During the debate over health care reform legislation, Fox advanced false claims that a public option would increase the deficit. For instance, on the November 9, 2009, Fox & Friends, Fox News correspondent Mike Emanuel repeatedly advanced Sen. Joe Lieberman's false claim that a "public option plan" would lead to "debt [that] can break America and send us into a recession that's worse than the one we are fighting our way out of today." Emanuel called Lieberman's comments "interesting." However, CBO had shown in several estimates that the public option proposals would either reduce or have no impact on the deficit.
Fox's Johnson absurdly rejects CBO score
Johnson: CBO report is "a phony analysis." Later on the July 23 Fox & Friends, Fox News legal analyst Peter Johnson Jr. said the CBO report stating that the public option will save money through 2020 is "a phony analysis." From Fox & Friends:
JOHNSON: What they've done in a five-page letter -- and we should really, you know, look at that. The CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, is saying -- in just a five-page letter -- we're going to save $68 billion off the deficit.
DOOCY: Well that sounds pretty good, if that's true.
JOHNSON: Sure. They're challenging the Republicans. They're saying, hey, Republicans, you want to walk the walk, you know, on the deficit? We have a plan here. We're going to reduce the deficit in America. But you know, part of that projection, Steve Doocy, is they said, well, the way we're going to reduce the deficit is insurance costs will be lower and, therefore, people will have higher income and, therefore, they will pay higher taxes to the federal government. And that's how we're going to reduce the deficit. I mean, it's a phony analysis.
Fox has a history of rejecting CBO reports with which it disagrees
Beck mocks CBO score of health care reform: "Well, that's a party in my pants." On the March 18 edition of his Fox News program, Glenn Beck asked: "How would the CBO numbers even make any difference? You know, 'Only 900 and' -- what is it -- '$954 billion.' Ooh. Well, that's a party in my pants. Thank you for sending that one by. How does that make a difference?"
Doocy: "[C]an you really rely on the numbers that the Congressional Budget Office comes out with?" On the March 19 edition of Fox & Friends, Doocy claimed, "Democrats say it will reduce the deficit by more than $100 billion over the first decade." After guest host Dana Perino responded by saying, "Well, but there are other members who say that it actually will cost $2.4 trillion over the 10 years once you add it all up," Doocy asked, "Because, can you really rely on the numbers that the Congressional Budget Office comes out with?"
Perino: "[C]an we trust these numbers?" Introducing an interview with Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) on the same edition of Fox & Friends, Perino said: "Nine-hundred and forty billion dollars over the next decade. That's the preliminary price tag for the Democrats' health care bill, according to the Congressional Budget Office. It also says the plan will cut the federal deficit by $130 billion in that time, but can we trust these numbers?" Weiner said the score "came out really better than we thought it would. It was a great savings number, and so the deficit hawks now have things that they can point at and say, 'You know what? This really does save money.' " Perino then asked him, "But do you think ... that those numbers can be trusted later on?"
Johnson: "I don't expect or anticipate that their numbers are real." On the same edition of Fox & Friends, Kilmeade said that the "average person" would say, "[I]f a plan costs $940 billion, tell me how I'm saving 130 billion. So it doesn't make any sense." Johnson then noted that Perino had asked, "Do we really trust these numbers?" and claimed that "if you read carefully the latest CBO things, they say, 'Well, we don't usually project out another 10 years.' And there's so many variables and so many wiggle words that I don't expect or anticipate that their numbers are real." He later said, "I think we're being spun."
Hannity calls CBO score "budgetary gimmicks and tricks." On the March 18 edition of his Fox News program, Sean Hannity stated that the CBO score of the health care bill reflected "budgetary gimmicks and tricks" and said it is "[f]lat-out dishonest" that the score didn't contain separate legislation that cancels scheduled cuts in Medicare payments to doctors. After guest Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) claimed that "the only way that [Democrats] pay for those additions is to reduce seniors' health care benefits on their Medicaid or raise taxes," Hannity responded, "[W]hy would the CBO not highlight this to give a truly educational, informational, you know, scoring of this to the American people?"
Hemmer asks Juan Williams: "[D]o you believe" the CBO long-range forecast? On the March 18 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom, Fox News contributor Juan Williams called the CBO score a "deal-maker" because it will "reassure those independents and, by extension, those Democrats that have been on the fence because they are deficit hawks" because of the deficit reduction. Co-host Bill Hemmer then said to Williams: "That's 20 years out. You've lived in Washington a long time. Do you believe that?"
Fox Nation headline: "CBO Score Called a 'Lie.' " On March 18, Fox Nation posted a National Review Online article under the headline, "CBO Score Called a 'Lie.' " From Fox Nation:
By contrast, Fox News touted "favorable" CBO score of the GOP health care bill
Fox's Shively touted "favorable" CBO report on GOP health care bill and advanced false GOP claim that GOP plan would lower premiums more than Democrats' plan. On the November 5, 2009, edition of Fox & Friends, contributor Caroline Shively adopted the GOP spin by reporting: "Now, on the other side of the aisle, Republicans have gotten favorable reports from the Congressional Budget Office on the cost of their health care bill. GOP lawmakers say that means premiums for millions of families will be almost $5,000 lower under their plan, compared to the cheapest plan in the Democrats' exchange." In fact, the $5,000 difference Shively cited ignored premium caps in the House Democrats' plan. As Media Matters has noted, because the Democrats' health care bill provides premium caps on a sliding scale based on income, the lowest amount that a family would have to pay in premiums is significantly less than the GOP alternative. Shively's Fox & Friends report ignored that the GOP plan would not cover most uninsured Americans. Shively also did not report that the CBO estimates indicate that House Democrats' bill lowers the deficit more than the GOP's proposal.
America's Newsroom attributes Republican talking point to CBO. On the November 5, 2009, edition of America's Newsroom, co-host Martha McCallum claimed: "The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office is saying that the Republican bill ... will carry lower costs for Americans. The CBO estimates that health insurance premiums would be nearly $5,000 cheaper under the Republican reforms than the Democratic ones." In fact, CBO never made that claim. The comparison was based on calculations done by Republican members of the House Ways and Means Committee. From America's Newsroom:
And there you have it. More taxable income for the government to get their hands on and that is how the CBO plans for deficit reduction. I love it the way the CBO thinks that if politicians get any extra cash from us it automatically goes towards paying down the debt. And their crystal ball for 2020, with a completely different and unknown administration and Congress in charge, will walk that money over to the Treasury and pay on our deficit.
And MMfA criticizes those who have the gall to question this? Amazing.
But isn't this what happened in the Clinton years. Tax revenues went up but the deficits went down. We had politicians using revenues not as an excuse to spend more but to drive down the debt.
It's all very neat and tidy and convenient.
If health care reform can reduce per patient costs, that helps with the medicare costs. If the government has more revenue from Health Care Reform and uses it to lower the deficit, like Clinton did, then at least we are not making the problem worse. Doing nothing will make the problem worse, budget wise
Forget it, you are way too much of a simpleton to have this discussion with. You are so entrenched in your big government liberal programs that you will lie to keep it status quo. No cuts in entitlements, never. Therefore, no serious discussions about our financial well being can be had with you.
Hopeless.
Well, I didn't know you were talking about that forest of green,
You really need to educate yourself. I am through trying to do it.
Your refusal to even look at entitlements is appalling.
You insistance on cutting programs that many elderly rely on to survive, ones that they paid into all of their working lives, is even more appalling.
"We had very strong economic growth in the 50s while the highest marginal tax rate was over 90%."
> an hour ago.
"I did not state anything about raising taxes" > now.
And even after that, there's still money in the trust fund.
RightON is making his usual bogus argument - the money in the trust fund was loaned out, and will be repaid when we need to draw those funds!
The solution is pretty easy. Simply call upon those who have more than they could possibly need or use to pay their fair share of taxes. It's time for them to do the right thing, pitch in and keep America great.
The solution is pretty easy. Simply call upon those who have more than they could possibly need or use to pay their fair share of taxes. It's time for them to do the right thing, pitch in and keep America great.
How is the cost of supporting Congress relevant to a thread about a discussion about how the Public Option wouldn't have saved us a lot of money?
Oh, that's right, it's not, but you're RightON, and that's your job as a paid troll to distract and deceive.
There are a LOT of things that need to be done. With some areas of the budget, we need to eliminate waste. With other parts of the budget, we need to find better ways to spend our money so that we get more bang for our buck.
You're dishonestly ignoring the fact that THIS is about how we can HELP FIX our healthcare provisioning AND decrease the cost curve, which had been going up much more than inflation for the past 40 years! Not every area of the budget will have the same set of solutions. For HCR, the plan implemented WILL help save a LOT of money.
And because you couldn't debunk a thing I said, you made a baseless personal attack! No shock there.
See the problem with you wingnuts is that you think that anyone thinks that the Government should be there to protect the citizens of this country are un-motivated, lazy bums. When the truth is that most of us come from families that were dirt poor, felt the wrath of wingnuts like you, grew up and made something of ourselves, but don't want anyont to ever go through the crap that we had to.
And you are Goddamned right I am anger and bitter when I hear the crap you wingnuts spew about the poor being lazy or worthless because I did grow up in a family that became dirt poor when Raygun became President and started busting unions and exporting jobs causing my dad to lose a decent paying job. Then had to endure the taunts of the nutjobs about being lazy or God was punishing us for being Catholic and not true Christians. When in reality the Economy in my area sucked and unemployment was around 20% because of all the steel plants shutting down. I had a miserable existance as a child and want no child to go through what I had to.
GEt your sh*t striaght right on.
Not really, RO. MMfA is pointing out the hypocrisy of those who cite CBO numbers when it supports them, but when the CBO projections are NOT convenient for them they denegrate the CBO or just omit them all together. Thats called hypocrisy. Its something you demonstrate regularly.
your best defense is the 'yeah, but you do it too" defense? got evidence?
However the posters here and you have decided to stray slightly and discuss HCR in a macro manner. Fine. Still does not change the fact that the rightwing are hypocrits when it comes to the CBO as documented on this thread and many others.
You were obviously conflating debt and deficit. You further went on to castigate MediaMatters for covering the story accurately.
So now we're left with you having no credible objection to this article. The public option will save money. The CBO stated it and supported their claim. The economics didn't support Fox News's political agenda, so they dismissed it out of hand with no substantiation or credible analysis. Just like you did here.
"The public option will save money. The CBO stated it and supported their claim"
The above statement from you is just a regurgitation of the objection MMfA has to anyone who disagrees. You just repeated it, and failed to make a more compelling case. But nice try.
http://blogs.ngm.com/.a/6a00e0098226918833012876a6070f970c-800wi
We spend way more per person on health care than any other country (7,290 vs 4,417 in 2nd place) yet what we get for our money is not so spectacular. Conservatives are afraid to have an honest look at how other countries get the same or better results for less money. To them, giving everyone affordable access to health insurance can only result in disaster. They seem to be telling use that they don't know how or don't want to solve the problem. My guess is ideology short term political gain through scaring people is more important.
I'd rather they just say they don't know. At least that's honest.
Unfortunately the functional and adult debate we needed for HC got derailed with all the hysteria over death panels and socialism. It is so sad for us that our media and politicians could not review what works and doesn't work in other countries and formulate something unique to us. I would have hoped we could study the issue and come up with something better that what other industrialized countries have. Instead we got another conservative media driven circus.
And congressional budget office estimates don't give me any comfort, just because they are non-partisan doesn't mean they right.
Other countries deliver the goods with less expense. Those options were rejected without much discussion. The current estimates of costs might not be accurate but I am certain they are closer to reality than anything the very partisan FOX news is putting out.
And when you won't be brutally honest about what it is you advocate, good, bad and the ugly, then you open yourself up to smears and distortions from the other side.
If you are so afraid that the public will not "buy" what you are "selling" that you have to package it, and focus group test it, and wrap it in the most flattering game of numbers and costs you can imagine, then you shouldn't be shocked or appalled if your message isn't getting through. But it's what poll driven politicians and their handlers do all the time, on nearly every issue. They are programmed that way, when they are out to deliver a new program or a new proposal it has to be on a silver platter. Treat us like adults, not children.
either your message isn't strong enough, or you don't have the convictions to explain or "sell" it properly on honestly.
This isn't so complicated. Other countries have lower costs with the same results. I don't think it should be that difficult to let the American people know what goes on in other countries but I guess I am wrong. Fear and misinformation won the debate. Blame should mostly placed on those peddling the fear and promoting the misinformation.
One can't poison "poison". It's already poison.
I didn't say what I said without just cause. And because I said what I said WITH CAUSE, it was the person whose behavior justified those comments who poisoned the debate, doofus!
HAHAHA! LOL! Spoken by the first and most notorious poison carrier this website has ever known. Nice job SueLu
Sue, You are exactly like the arsonist who tells the owner of the burned down house, "I'm so sorry that the firefighters got your house all wet".
Sue, You are exactly like the arsonist who tells the owner of the burned down house, "I'm so sorry that the firefighters got your house all wet".
This is not rocket science, yet it apparently baffles you.
That failure is all yours.
There will always be fear and misinformation in any political debate on hot button issues. It ain't going away. So, the best way for those who are proposing the issue are to be as forthcoming as possible, as brutally honest as they can be with no spin, no rosy best case scenarios and no denying the downsides or the costs. If you cover all the bases, as I said the good bad and the ugly, then you stand a much better chance of stunting that fear and misinformation.
However, if you leave out what may not sell so well or be tough to hear, you only have yourself to blame if your message gets corrupted. I wish politicians would learn that lesson, but they won't. They are too afraid.
Every business and every governmental agency HAS TO estimate their expected expenses and expected income! Those projections allow them to plan, for businesses to say that because fuel costs are projected to increase, for example, they need to raise the price of their product to cover those increased costs. Or for governmental agencies to handle the mundane - what should our property tax be given we have gotten more extraterritorial jurisdiction within our boundaries, giving us more property tax income but making us have higher costs to provide greater services over a larger area.
We DO need these kinds of projections. No one has said that it's an exact science, but for you to suggest that we shouldn't rely upon them at all is nonsense! It IS what we use to discuss the cost/benefit analysis of differing proposals!
You're just a dishonest paid troll, pushing an argument that's been repeatedly debunked a long time ago. And FoxNews is pushing a long-debunked, nonsensical argument that the public option wouldn't save us a lot of money! We don't have to know the EXACT dollar amount it will save us to know it will save us money!
Your post is thoroughly irrelevant, as are you.
If a drunk is too impaired to consent, then they can't be said to have consented! If a person doesn't understand English well enough to consent, then it can't be said that they consented.
An unconscious person can't be said to have consented. And this guy who didn't understand English couldn't consent.
I don't look increasingly ridiculous around here.
And I wasn't wrong about Sherrod either. She DID discriminate towards blacks when she first had that job back in 1986. She learned that she should not have done that, and she corrected her mistake before it badly impacted that white farmer.
But she DID show bad behavior initially.
Yes, a few people here didn't show very good reading comprehension. That was their failing, not mine.
This is not rocket science. She got let go because at one point in her life, she showed that she was willing to discrminiate against one race. The USDA had zero tolerance for that, and so she was told that she had to resign. I didn't think that was right, and said so from the very start, and it turns out that Vilsack thinks he made his decision too quickly. That doesn't say that she didn't discriminate though!
Too bad YOU got outed here as a disingenuous poster, and so your only option was to make, yet again, another baseless personal attack!
Rather than admit your error, which in and of itself is no big deal, your insane stubbornness got the better of you. So you dishonestly, and absurdly, insisted that the mmfa article supported your claims, thereby attributing your stupidity to the mmfa staff.
And this week, on the lengthy thread about Sherrod, you dishonestly insisted that Vilsack made the decision to request her resignation AFTER he examined the facts in their full context.
After others explained, multiple times, that you were wrong still again, you yet again lacked the integrity to admit your errors. Read Vilsack's transcript. He says he requested the resignation after reading only a portion of Sherrod's speech, and not the full speech which was aired later. You even posted the link to the transcript, yet you still lied about it. . .
Sherod racist - Right On = Troll
But whatever happens is anyone's guess, and I am not that scared of that scenario, if I trust that honest stewards in public service are in charge then I would also trust they do the right thing, come to us like adults and deal with what comes up.
Instead of acting like these CBO numbers are set in stone and can't be questioned.
http://mediamatters.org/research/201007070016
On its July 7 broadcast, Fox & Friends falsely claimed that President Obama's "rhetoric" on health care reform and the deficit didn't match "reality" because, they claimed, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the bill would add $115 billion to the deficit. In fact, CBO found that health care reform would reduce the deficit; the $115 billion figure Fox & Friends referenced is, in fact, discretionary spending that Congress would have to approve separately.
http://mediamatters.org/research/201006040027
In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, Karl Rove dubiously claimed that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) found it "would cost $115 billion more than estimated." In fact, the higher cost estimate would only be spent if Congress separately appropriates it, just as Congress would have to do for any other spending bill, and moreover, the White House has said that this money would have to be offset by other cuts.
Covering everyone does not have to cost more. We already spend way more per person than the next country on the list: 7,290 (USA) vs 4,417 (2nd place country). Unless we have some sort of national defect (maybe we do: libertarian conservationism), there is no reason we can't take care of everyone with the money we are spending right now.
http://blogs.ngm.com/.a/6a00e0098226918833012876a6070f970c-800wi
This idea that this is all a choice between a current system and some kind of heartless draconian rationing system is a false choice. Its framed this way by conservatives who have no faith in the American people and their government to solve problems.