The New Republic posted:

---

Sorting through the deceptive attacks on health care reform gets old, even for me. But on Wednesday the Republicans and their allies made a claim so obviously misleading that they, and the media outlets parroting them, must have known they spreading false information.

The basis for the claim is the Congressional Budget Office’s latest projections for the Affordable Care Act, which critics (and I!) like to call Obamacare. When Congress first passed the law, in the spring of 2010, CBO made official estimates of how much the law would cost, how many people would get insurance as a result, and so on. It updated that estimate one year later and has, now, updated it one more time.

The CBO distributed its report in the morning and, by 11 a.m., Republican offices on Capitol Hill were spitting out press releases about it. According to the Republicans, CBO had discovered that Obamacare was going to cost $1.76 trillion over the next ten years. “The CBO’s revised cost estimate indicates that this massive government intrusion into America’s health care system will be far more costly than was originally claimed,” Tom Price, chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee, said. Within a few hours, both Fox News and the Washington Times were carrying online stories making the same claim. According to the Fox News account, CBO was “showing that the bill is substantially more expensive—twice as much as the original $900 billion price tag.”

If CBO had truly determined that health care reform’s cost will be twice the original estimates, it would be huge news. But CBO said nothing of the sort.

To figure out the cost of health care reform, CBO looks at each of the law’s component parts and, for accounting purposes, groups them into different categories. It calls one category “gross cost of coverage expansions”—that’s the amount of money the federal government will spend to help people get insurance, mostly by offering Medicaid to more people or giving people subsidies they can use to help offset the cost of private insurance. Last year, CBO estimated that the gross cost of coverage expansion from 2012 through 2021 would be $1.445 trillion. Now CBO thinks the gross cost will be $1.496 trillion. The number shifted, in part, because the CBO has changed its projections for economic growth. (MSNBC’s Tom Curry has a nice explanation of this.) But, in the context of such a large a budget projection, that’s barely any difference at all.

In the this latest estimate, CBO extends its projection out one more year, to capture the expenses from 2012 to 2022, in order to capture a full decade. In 2022, CBO says, the gross cost of coverage expansion will be $265 billion. Add that to the $1.496 and you get (with rounding) the $1.76 trillion—the one in the press releases and the Fox story.

But there is nothing new or surprising about this. It’s only slightly more money than the previous year’s outlays. The ten-year number seems to jump only because the time frame for the estimate has moved, dropping one year, 2011, and adding another, 2022. Obamacare has virtually no outlays in 2011, because the Medicaid expansion and subsidies don’t start up until 2014, which means the shifting time frame drops a year of no implementation and adds one of full implementation.

---

Voodoo-Dahl posted:

---

It's just our liberal media reporting a Republican smear as if it were fact, again.

The New Republic posted:

---

Sorting through the deceptive attacks on health care reform gets old, even for me. But on Wednesday the Republicans and their allies made a claim so obviously misleading that they, and the media outlets parroting them, must have known they spreading false information.

The basis for the claim is the Congressional Budget Office’s latest projections for the Affordable Care Act, which critics (and I!) like to call Obamacare. When Congress first passed the law, in the spring of 2010, CBO made official estimates of how much the law would cost, how many people would get insurance as a result, and so on. It updated that estimate one year later and has, now, updated it one more time.

The CBO distributed its report in the morning and, by 11 a.m., Republican offices on Capitol Hill were spitting out press releases about it. According to the Republicans, CBO had discovered that Obamacare was going to cost $1.76 trillion over the next ten years. “The CBO’s revised cost estimate indicates that this massive government intrusion into America’s health care system will be far more costly than was originally claimed,” Tom Price, chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee, said. Within a few hours, both Fox News and the Washington Times were carrying online stories making the same claim. According to the Fox News account, CBO was “showing that the bill is substantially more expensive—twice as much as the original $900 billion price tag.”

If CBO had truly determined that health care reform’s cost will be twice the original estimates, it would be huge news. But CBO said nothing of the sort.

To figure out the cost of health care reform, CBO looks at each of the law’s component parts and, for accounting purposes, groups them into different categories. It calls one category “gross cost of coverage expansions”—that’s the amount of money the federal government will spend to help people get insurance, mostly by offering Medicaid to more people or giving people subsidies they can use to help offset the cost of private insurance. Last year, CBO estimated that the gross cost of coverage expansion from 2012 through 2021 would be $1.445 trillion. Now CBO thinks the gross cost will be $1.496 trillion. The number shifted, in part, because the CBO has changed its projections for economic growth. (MSNBC’s Tom Curry has a nice explanation of this.) But, in the context of such a large a budget projection, that’s barely any difference at all.

In the this latest estimate, CBO extends its projection out one more year, to capture the expenses from 2012 to 2022, in order to capture a full decade. In 2022, CBO says, the gross cost of coverage expansion will be $265 billion. Add that to the $1.496 and you get (with rounding) the $1.76 trillion—the one in the press releases and the Fox story.

But there is nothing new or surprising about this. It’s only slightly more money than the previous year’s outlays. The ten-year number seems to jump only because the time frame for the estimate has moved, dropping one year, 2011, and adding another, 2022. Obamacare has virtually no outlays in 2011, because the Medicaid expansion and subsidies don’t start up until 2014, which means the shifting time frame drops a year of no implementation and adds one of full implementation.

---

The New Republic

---

Vydor posted:

---

Voodoo-Dahl posted:

---

It's just our liberal media reporting a Republican smear as if it were fact, again.

The New Republic posted:

---

Sorting through the deceptive attacks on health care reform gets old, even for me. But on Wednesday the Republicans and their allies made a claim so obviously misleading that they, and the media outlets parroting them, must have known they spreading false information.

The basis for the claim is the Congressional Budget Office’s latest projections for the Affordable Care Act, which critics (and I!) like to call Obamacare. When Congress first passed the law, in the spring of 2010, CBO made official estimates of how much the law would cost, how many people would get insurance as a result, and so on. It updated that estimate one year later and has, now, updated it one more time.

The CBO distributed its report in the morning and, by 11 a.m., Republican offices on Capitol Hill were spitting out press releases about it. According to the Republicans, CBO had discovered that Obamacare was going to cost $1.76 trillion over the next ten years. “The CBO’s revised cost estimate indicates that this massive government intrusion into America’s health care system will be far more costly than was originally claimed,” Tom Price, chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee, said. Within a few hours, both Fox News and the Washington Times were carrying online stories making the same claim. According to the Fox News account, CBO was “showing that the bill is substantially more expensive—twice as much as the original $900 billion price tag.”

If CBO had truly determined that health care reform’s cost will be twice the original estimates, it would be huge news. But CBO said nothing of the sort.

To figure out the cost of health care reform, CBO looks at each of the law’s component parts and, for accounting purposes, groups them into different categories. It calls one category “gross cost of coverage expansions”—that’s the amount of money the federal government will spend to help people get insurance, mostly by offering Medicaid to more people or giving people subsidies they can use to help offset the cost of private insurance. Last year, CBO estimated that the gross cost of coverage expansion from 2012 through 2021 would be $1.445 trillion. Now CBO thinks the gross cost will be $1.496 trillion. The number shifted, in part, because the CBO has changed its projections for economic growth. (MSNBC’s Tom Curry has a nice explanation of this.) But, in the context of such a large a budget projection, that’s barely any difference at all.

In the this latest estimate, CBO extends its projection out one more year, to capture the expenses from 2012 to 2022, in order to capture a full decade. In 2022, CBO says, the gross cost of coverage expansion will be $265 billion. Add that to the $1.496 and you get (with rounding) the $1.76 trillion—the one in the press releases and the Fox story.

But there is nothing new or surprising about this. It’s only slightly more money than the previous year’s outlays. The ten-year number seems to jump only because the time frame for the estimate has moved, dropping one year, 2011, and adding another, 2022. Obamacare has virtually no outlays in 2011, because the Medicaid expansion and subsidies don’t start up until 2014, which means the shifting time frame drops a year of no implementation and adds one of full implementation.

---

The New Republic

---

Ok, the claim I think is, Obamacare was argued during the debate of the issue to have a 900billion dollar price tag, the latest CBO is that it's 1.4 trillion. I've haven't been keeping up with the details, but that's how I understand it. What is the lie?

---

Ashmaele posted:

---

Repubes were saying that the cost would be more than twice what was originally given.

The lie info is in your post actually.

---

Vydor posted:

---

Ashmaele posted:

---

Repubes were saying that the cost would be more than twice what was originally given.

The lie info is in your post actually.

---

So if it was 1.8 trillion, the Republicans would be right? But since it's 1.4 or 1.7 they are wrong?

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

Vydor posted:

---

Ashmaele posted:

---

Repubes were saying that the cost would be more than twice what was originally given.

The lie info is in your post actually.

---

So if it was 1.8 trillion, the Republicans would be right? But since it's 1.4 or 1.7 they are wrong?

---

No. It's pretty simple. The 900 billion number was for 2009-2019. The new 1.7 number is for 2012-2022. A lot of the coverage provisions didn't kick in until 2014, so of course the cost went "up," but only because the two estimates were for different periods.

It's like saying Bush's tax cuts actually cost 8 trillion instead of 4 trillion if you measure them over a time period double as long, and that means Bush lied about how much they'd cost!111

---

Ashmaele posted:

---

Repubes were saying that the cost would be more than twice what was originally given.

The lie info is in your post actually.

---

theredkay1 posted:

---

Since the bill was passed, CBO estimations have shown the bill reduces the deficit even more than originally estimated...although the change is small.

The press doesnt seem to run with that story. Stupid liberal media.

---

Koneg posted:

---

Ashmaele posted:

---

Repubes were saying that the cost would be more than twice what was originally given.

The lie info is in your post actually.

---

Where's the lie?

The original claim was $900 billion over 10 years.

The article acknowledges that the majority of outlays haven't even begun yet, and won't until 2014.

Now the projection is justy shy of $1.8 trillion, and the majority of costs still haven't begun yet, so just what exactly do you think has been lied about?

1. The costs haven't started yet.
2. The costs were guesstimated to be $900 billion.
3. The costs are now guesstimated to be twice that? And this is somehow lying?

---

Elocism posted:

---

its funny that all of a sudden libtards want people to understand that the original estimates didnt include many of the years of costs, but they didnt mention it when they were trying to get support for the goddamn thing 4 years ago

---

The New Republic posted:

---

When the Affordable Care Act became law, CBO estimated that the net result of all these changes, taken together, would be to reduce the deficit. Now, with this revised estimate, CBO has decided the law will reduce the deficit by even more money.

---

Sin_of_Onin posted:

---

Koneg posted:

---

Ashmaele posted:

---

Repubes were saying that the cost would be more than twice what was originally given.

The lie info is in your post actually.

---

Where's the lie?

The original claim was $900 billion over 10 years.

The article acknowledges that the majority of outlays haven't even begun yet, and won't until 2014.

Now the projection is justy shy of $1.8 trillion, and the majority of costs still haven't begun yet, so just what exactly do you think has been lied about?

1. The costs haven't started yet.
2. The costs were guesstimated to be $900 billion.
3. The costs are now guesstimated to be twice that? And this is somehow lying?

---

You are one confused idiot.

---

Bjorvald posted:

---

I am confused too because I don't understand that apples are being compared to oranges!

---

Vydor posted:

---

OK. I think I remember the debate now.

It was 10 years of revenue and 6 years of expenses in the original 900 billion. Now we are getting through to a window closer to what will be normal and the costs have nearly doubled.

---