Dem Source: CBO Says Health Bill Cuts Deficit (by $130 Billion),Costs $940 Billion

[kpete]

Source: Talking Points Memo

Dem Source: CBO Says Health Bill Cuts Deficit, Costs $940 Billion

A Democratic source provides TPM with the CBO's final numbers on the health care reform bill--the composite analysis of the Senate health care bill as amended by a soon-to-be-released reconciliation bill, which makes a number of amendments. The findings, as expected, keep the bill in line with the Senate bill's stand alone score:

The bill would reduce the deficit by $130 billion in the first ten years, and potentially by $1.2 trillion in the second ten years (though CBO always warns that projections into the second decade are extremely unpredictable).

According to the source, CBO finds that the bill reduces annual growth in Medicare expenditures by 1.4 percentage points per year, extending Medicare's solvency by at least 9 years.

And, in a small, but significant improvement over the Senate bill, the combined package will expand health insurance coverage to 32 million Americans, as opposed to the Senate bill's 31 million.



Read more: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/dem-source-cbo-says-health-bill-cuts-deficit-costs-940-billion.php?ref=fpb

---

UPDATE:
1. CUTS THE DEFICIT Cuts the deficit by $130 billion in the first ten years (2010 – 2019). Cuts the deficit by $1.2 trillion in the second ten years.

2. REINS IN WASTEFUL MEDICARE COSTS AND EXTENDS THE SOLVENCY OF MEDICARE; CLOSES THE PRESCRIPTION DRUG DONUT HOLE Reduces annual growth in Medicare expenditures by 1.4 percentage points per year—while improving benefits and lowering costs for seniors. Extends Medicare’s solvency by at least 9 years.

3. EXPANDS AND IMPROVES HEALTH COVERAGE FOR MIDDLE CLASS FAMILIES Expands health insurance coverage to 32 million Americans Helps guarantee that 95 percent of Americans will be covered.

4. IS FULLY PAID FOR Is fully paid for – costs $940 billion over a decade. (Americans spend nearly $2.5 trillion each year on health care now and nearly two-thirds of the bill’s cost is paid for by reducing health care costs).

UPDATE 2
Hoyer says vote will come on Sunday
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer hailed the figures from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office during a meeting with a group of reporters on Thursday morning and said the House would vote on Sunday.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/87557-cbo-health-package-costs-940-billion-cuts-deficit-by-130b
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/3/18/847405/-CBO-Numbers-Are-Out
http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0310/CBO_numbers.html
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/87557-cbo-health-package-costs-940-billion-cuts-deficit-by-130b

[MineralMan]

1. Well, that's positive.

Thanks.

[NJmaverick]

2. The more one looks at the bill the better it gets

[nyy1998]

4. +1

[Change Happens]

11. +1

[No Elephants]

3. If only the CBO had rated HR 676. Here's at least hoping the OP figures are correct.

[Roland99]

7. +1 on the first part of that

As for this bill, well, I hope those with pre-existing conditions aren't getting their hopes up. Either that or they better start saving now as they'll be paying out the wazoo.

[No Elephants]

44. So will those over 55, but not eligible for Medicare.

[Jefferson23]

10. Agreed, and we certainly have our work cut out for us, considering:

Thursday, Mar 18, 2010 06:19 EDT
Has Rahm's assumption about progressives been vindicated?
By Glenn Greenwald
Politico's Ben Smith yesterday suggested that one important aspect of Rahm Emanuel's health care strategy -- to ignore the demands of progressives on the ground that they would fall into line at the end no matter what -- has been vindicated. Smith points to a new poll showing near-unanimous support for the bill among liberals as well as the fact that not a single progressive member of the House (not even Dennis Kucinich) will oppose this bill even though the prime progressive demands were ignored. Smith's argument unsurprisingly provoked immediate objections from numerous progressives -- Paul Krugman, Markos Moultisas, Chris Bowers -- who argue that in the wake of Scott Brown's election, Emanuel advocated a drastically scaled-back version of health care reform because he believed the original, larger version couldn't pass. If (as looks highly likely) the current bill passes, then, they argue, Emanuel will have been proven wrong -- not vindicated.

snip* For almost a full year, scores of progressive House members vowed -- publicly and unequivocally -- that they would never support a health care bill without a robust public option. Up until a few weeks ago, many progressive opinon leaders -- such as Moultisas, Howard Dean, Keith Olbermann and many others -- were insisting that the Senate bill was worse than the status quo and should be defeated. But now? All of those progressives House members are doing exactly what they swore they would never do -- vote for a health care bill with no public option -- and virtually every progressive opinion leader is not only now supportive of the bill, but vehemently so. In other words, exactly what Rahm said would happen -- ignore the progressives, we don't need to give them anything because they'll get into line -- is exactly what happened. How is that not vindication?

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/

:(

[No Elephants]

45. In some, the Kool-Aid and sheepleness is indeed strong. However, with all due

respect to Salon, the Progressive Caucus is not the be all and end all.

Scott Brown ran on being the 41st vote against this bill and he won the seat of the most liberal Senator in the Senate in the most blue state in the nation.

Everyone outside Massachusetts asked why coakley conceded so early in the evening. The answer: She conceded when she saw how low the Boston turnout numbers were, which she knew as soon as the polls closed. Boston is the most liberal area of the most liberal state. Democrats in Boston and elswhere in the state stayed home in droves.

That was not the only reason Coakley lost. It was something of a perfect storm. Obama was elected in a perfect storm, too, only this time, it worked for the Republican candidate, instead of for the Democrat. But, still, if liberals had turned out, she would have won.

Wait until November 2010, until November 2012, until fundraising time is upon us, until it's time for people to phone bank, knock on doors, etc. I don't know that the full effects of the contempt for liberals and the corporatism of today's Democrats will be felt for a decade--or several decades.

When Johnson sighned the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he supposedly said "We've lost the South for a generation." I don't believe he actually said it because I think he was too politically savvy to say it, at least to say exactly that. For one thing, the change was gradual. For another thing, Democrats lost the South for more than a generation: how your parents raise you has an effect on how you vote when you reach 18 and that lasts much longer than one generation.

So, the story of "Will the left indeed put up with anyhing" has not yet been written.

[Jefferson23]

54. I believe Greenwald's points are on this one domestic issue, and not

an across the board assault on the power of the liberals. The result is, in the end, they gave in, and that is a reality that deeply saddens me.

[RoccoR5955]

16. Are you kidding?!?!

HR 676 would have MADE money!

[valerief]

34. Ha! That would have helped AMERICANS too much!!!! nt

[derby378]

5. That's not much of a cut

Especially when you see how our National Debt has been trending. I'm not impressed.

[thereismore]

6. You can't be series!!!1! It is a miracle that giving subsidies, etc, cuts deficit at all! nt

[LynneSin]

9. The first 10 years are a bit of a wash - almost like breaking even

But starting the next 10 years (if the repukes don't find a way to gut it) it seems that there will be significant savings to the budget.

But if we can break even the first 10 years - that's a step forward!

[Renew Deal]

13. Do you support abolishing medicare?

I bet that would save money. :shrug:

[No Elephants]

46. So would raising the Medicare premium for those who can bear the increase.

[jmowreader]

30. It is impressive in its unimpressiveness

This, Derby, is what you are not looking at: the teabaggers, Heritage Foundation, FreedomWorks, all those, have been running around saying HCR is going to increase the deficit by unbelievable amounts. The bipartisan CBO is reporting HCR will actually slightly lower the deficit.

In this, we're all Margaret Dumont to the RW's Chico Marx, asking us "who are you going to believe, me or your own lying eyes?"

[No Elephants]

47. Not exactly. The CBO does not equal my own lying eyes.

Not saying the numbers are slanted, not saying they aren't. Just sayin'

[derby378]

52. You make a very good point

But then again, Republicans didn't mind inflating the deficit - over and over again - in order to increase funding for Bush's splendid little war in Iraq. It might be fun listening to them squeal over this revelation.

[truedelphi]

51. And what I wonder is how many people think that this means the CONSUMERS

Will save money?

Obama is careful not to point out that the "savings" that he is referring to will not at all affect us consumers. Instead we consumers will be stuck with whatever inflated prices the health insurers hold to our heads as ransom for the ingrained notion that someday we may need their ability to pay for something and actually receive that payment.

[madmax]

8. k&r

[Ozymanithrax]

12. If it reduces human misery, brings health care to people, and helps improve...

the quality of their lives, who the fuck should care.

If it didn't save a penny, it would be worth it.

If it added 970 billion to the deficit, it would be worth it.

[PoliticalOne65]

14. Only in Washington

We are spending $940 billion dollars, see we are saving you $130 billion. They are crazy. If I was on my own budget there is no way I could say I just spent $940 dollars thus saving myself $130.

[eyepaddle]

17. That is completely unassailable logic on your part.

There's no possible way I could save $130 dollars a year on my cell phone plan if the new one still cost me $940....

[backscatter712]

19. It costs $940B, but that $940B's fully paid for.

With the various taxes, cuts, increases in revenue & so on that result from this bill, the costs of this bill are paid for, so it doesn't run up the deficit. In fact, it reduces the deficit by $130B.

[AlbertCat]

21. They are crazy?

You forgot to figure in all the people who will die in 10 years, thus saving us lots!


Can anyone tell me why things take years to implement? Is this Stalin's 10 Year Plan?

I'm not impressed. But.... as with politics in my entire adult life.... "It's better than nothing".


Here's a savings plan! Cut all of Congress' and the Senate's salaries.... until they show improvement at doing their jobs. (which is not getting reelected, BTW)

[Zambero]

25. The $940 MM figure would still be spend absent HRC

And with no change there is no savings to be realized. The status quo, better defined as course we are currently taking, is not "free". For starters, consider the huge cost of emergency room susbsidy.

[bergie321]

31. That's because

You are a right wing zealot. You only know how to spend money in destructive ways. This is investing in the future and will save money.

[Dappleganger]

43. If you had...

more than one brain cell to rub together, you could probably do it. As it stands from your POV, it's probably quite confusing so I'll give ya that.

[SandWalker1984]

15. Funny, I googled CBO and errors -- and found they've made lots of them

I also found this on their own web site:

CBO's errors for forecasts looking two years ahead that were made between 1982 and 1997 did not differ markedly from either those of the Administration or the central tendency of the 50 or so forecasts that have made up the Blue Chip survey over the years. Comparing CBO's forecasts with that survey suggests that when CBO's economic predictions missed the mark by a margin wide enough to contribute to sizable misestimates of the deficit or surplus, those errors probably reflected limitations that confronted all forecasters. That result is not surprising because all forecasters, when making their predictions, have the same basic information available about the state of the economy, which they may then interpret differently. Moreover, CBO examines other forecasts when constructing its own, and CBO's forecast in turn may affect others in a similar way.


Translation: Garbage in = garbage out.

[Jennicut]

33. No, in other words, forecasting is never 100% full-proof.

It is a forecast based on the assumption that things will flow in a certain way and sometimes real life goes in the opposite direction. But it is the best guess anyone has.

[Igel]

67. The CBO's forecast tends to be particularly problematic.

They have base assumptions: That the legislation will be applied as expected, that it will not be changed, that the explicit assumptions in the legislation are accurate.

It's been a running argument--what are "reasonable" assumptions? Even in scoring the House HC bill the CBO pitched a mild fit. Not that it was widely reported. Still, it said the margins of error were great, that the assumptions it made weren't necessarily all the best, and it even suggested that the bill had been reverse engineered, knowing the CBO's methodology, to produce the right numbers. (That's not a compliment.)

As a great example, look at the budget projection figures released in 2000. The CBO assumed that growth would continue uninterrupted. Not for 2001. But for 10 years. Why? Because even though it was unreasonable, that was the Congressional BO was required to assume. The 2001 recession, by itself, destroyed the projected surplus. When the CBO's projection was released economic growth had continued unabated for a record (or nearly so), so projecting 10 years of the same was foolish; moreover, leading indicators already strongly suggested "inflation".

All CBO numbers need to be examined closely and thought about critically.

The CBO numbers reported need to be examined even more closely. A recent "stimulus" analysis was widely cited as possibly creating "up to" something like 3.5 million jobs. Of course, the CBO gave a range: 0.9 to 3.5 (or thereabouts), with the most likely just about in the middle, and with a lot of hedging. The thing is, 0.9 and 3.5 were equally likely. "Up to 3.5 million" and "as few as 0.9 million" were equally correct claims of what the report said.

[JBoy]

18. Two words: Let's roll.

[backscatter712]

20. Damn straight. The purity trolls can suck it! n/t

[No Elephants]

48. Remember how that worked out?

[TheEuclideanOne]

22. I was listening to Rush Limbaugh on the way in to work today.

He was going on and on about how Fraudulent the CBO numbers are and how they mean absolutely nothing until I guess the numbers on reconciliation. In fact, they should not look at the CBO numbers at all, even after they all come in, since the CBO is a partisan fraud.

Then he went on to how they are not just the "party of no", now. They are the party of "hell no!" and the only thing people should look at is how to kill the bill.

He is such a Fat Fuck! He get's a frickin heart attack and pays 20K out of pocket (more than many make in a year) and goes on and on about how improving healthcare is Marxist and Socialist and this ist and that ist. He preaches to an ignorant bunch. No solutions.

The one thing I can say is that he must be pretty scared from these numbers because he is pre-emptively trying to make sure that no matter how good the numbers could possibly be from the CBO, that people should ignore them. Don't look! Don't look!

[melm00se]

26. Like a broken clock

he is right twice a day.

he is repeating what the CBO head stated:

“Although CBO completed a preliminary review of legislative language prior to its release, the agency has not thoroughly examined the reconciliation proposal to verify its consistency with the previous draft. This estimate is therefore preliminary, pending a review of the language of the reconciliation proposal, as well as further review and refinement of the budgetary projections.” (CBO Director Doug Elmendorf, Letter To Rep. Nancy Pelosi, 3/18/10, P.1)

or in english:

we don't really know for sure we are just guessing as the whole enchilada isn't in yet.

[AtheistCrusader]

29. Exactly, this is not a solid estimate.

Not even a little bit.

I hope it's right, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

[TheEuclideanOne]

35. Yes, but what an extreme angle he was pushing.

There was no disguising that this was an estimate, awaiting the final numbers, but he was really going to such extremes to make sure that his listeners can automatically ignore the numbers in case they actually make the case that health care does pay for itself and reduced the deficit on top of that. I guess that facts really are the mortal enemy of Republicans. It is really jaw dropping!

It is similar to an election where an estimate of the winner comes out and the loser's party takes some pre-emptively extreme stance to ignore the final vote count. That way, even if the winner is declared, people can be prepared to acknowledge the winner as legitimate.

[melm00se]

37. politics is a dirty business n/t

[Scurrilous]

23. K & R

:thumbsup:

[joycean]

24. This is great!

At the risk of sounding juvenile- in your face Eric Cantor!

[Zambero]

27. No more excuses

Any so-called Blue Dog still voting against this bill, as watered down as it has become, is doing so strictly to placate an element of conservative constituents who are intractably against any reform measure. And for them, that equates to doing whatever it takes to get re-elected. Since these legislators are merely taking up space and are intentionally standing in the way of progress, their political future is inconsequential. A Republican could do no worse.

[FarLeftFist]

28. Well this debunked just about every RW talking point

No death panels, no socialism, no govt takeover, no medical rationing, etc. It reduces the deficit AND helps small businesses.

[bos1]

32. someone post when this hits a mainstream source, please

I need it in my fight with RWers. I only use sources that they can't try to find some hole in. (nothing against TPM I just need to eliminate that BS RW tactic)

[joycean]

36. You need a reliable source?

How about the CBO itself? http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/113xx/doc11355/hr4872.pdf

[bos1]

42. Is that the new one referred to in the TPM article?

The article makes it sound like they have an advance copy of something that is not out yet

[joycean]

50. What kind of policy dork do you take me for?

If you actually click on the file and read the first page, the date is March 18th, 2010. So yes, this is the new CBO report.

[bos1]

56. here's the answer I wanted -- found it myself thanks

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/03/cbo-940-billion-health-overhaul-saves-more-than-previous-bills/37693/

I was unable to find the easy figures in the report.

[joycean]

38. The question is

will these numbers holdup under reconciliation? When amendments are offered, and provisions altered, these numbers will necessarily change. The CBO admits this in the report itself, saying on page 1:

"Although CBO completed a preliminary review of legislative language prior to its
release, the agency has not thoroughly examined the reconciliation proposal to verify its
consistency with the previous draft. This estimate is therefore preliminary, pending a
review of the language of the reconciliation proposal, as well as further review and
refinement of the budgetary projections."

http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/113xx/doc11355/hr4872.pdf

[johnlal]

39. No Public Option/ No Deal n/t

[pampango]

53. You make the republicans and Blue Dogs very happy. The Progressive Caucus - not so much. n/t

[EFerrari]

65. Well thankfully, the only progressives that can be coerced are those in office. n/t

[pampango]

69. So progressive in office don't have the spines that Blue Dogs and republicans have?

They can't actually believe that a "yes" vote is the right thing to do, but BD's and repubs can't be coerced so they vote a principled "no"? (Who's coercing BD's and repubs to vote "no" if the bill is so good for their benefactors, the HIC's? Or are the progressives being forced to vote "yes" against their real wishes, while the BD's and repubs are being forced to vote "no" against the interests of their "constituents", so that everyone is voting the opposite of their beliefs?)

[tonekat]

40. All over the country, goober's heads are exploding!

First, they'll get red in the face, then they'll spit and stutter, and wave their misspelled signs. Then, boom.

[craigmatic]

41. Now they can pass it without excuses

[GreenTea]

49. The sheep, tea-baggers & the usual republicans imbeciles, WON"T hear this on Fox News, or

any of the other regressive nut-cases pushing fear & hate programs - i.e. pigman Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity etc...These hate mongers will just continue to feed the lies to the sheep, & tea-baggers knowing they will never hear the truth, the idiot robots will just go on believing what the republicans & their corporations tell them to believe, the same old tied bullshit and lies!

[warm regards]

55. Not really...

[ShockediSay]

57. House Democrats unveil latest changes to $940 billion health bill, move toward vote

Source: Washington Post

Congressional budget analysts said the emerging compromise between House and Senate Democrats would cost $940 billion over the next decade and expand insurance coverage to 32 million more Americans. Their preliminary report suggests the two-part legislation would bring the nation closer to universal health coverage than at any time in its history....

The cost of expanding coverage would exceed $200 billion a year by 2019, the CBO said. But new revenue in the package, combined with savings from program cuts, would outpace the cost of coverage, reducing the federal deficit by $138 billion over the next 10 years. The savings would continue to accumulate in the decade thereafter, the CBO said, eventually slicing around $1.2 trillion from the nation's budget gap.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/18/AR2010031801153.html

---

Why izzit you always hear about the costs from the right wing propagandists, and not about the NET SAVINGS for the deficit, the nation and the populace ?!?!?

[4lbs]

58. What? You actually want the right-wing propagandists and opponents to actually tell the full story?

Where would the fun in that be?

They'd rather just say it will cost $940 billion over 10 years.

Technically, it's true, so you can't say they are lying at all.

The fact that it will eventually save $1.2 trillion is ignored. Most of the politicians and propagandists will long be retired or dead after 10 years so they don't care about that aspect.

[Uncle Joe]

60. Are you referring to the 1.2 trillion in the second ten years?

"The bill would reduce the deficit by $130 billion in the first ten years, and potentially by $1.2 trillion in the second ten years (though CBO always warns that projections into the second decade are extremely unpredictable)."

[eridani]

59. By taking the money out of the hides of the middle class and the near poor

Big whoop. Color me unimpressed.

[ShockediSay]

62. Smells like to me funded Fascist propaganda nt

[eridani]

63. Fascism = government being the enforcer for the interests of corporations n/t

[ShockediSay]

64. Fascism = RIGHT WING CORPORATE POWER/CONTROL

& no individual 'liberal' civil rights

As in Mussolini's Italy

Franco's Spain

& Hirohito's Japan

w/ Propaganda Paid For Out of Corporate Profits
e.g. Harry & Louise

Tell me, what corporate powers are pushing for this health insurance reform bill?

[eridani]

68. The ones Obama met with last summer n/t

[steven johnson]

61. MSNBC: Health vote likely Sunday; Obama delays trip

"Democrats set a Sunday showdown in the House, and while Pelosi and others expressed confidence about the outcome, Obama's decision to put off a scheduled Asian trip until later in the year was a confession that the votes were not yet secured. "


Health vote likely Sunday; Obama delays trip

[ProudDad]

66. Gee, too bad it won't improve access to Health Care in USAmerika (n/t)