TPMDC
« Sessions to Sotomayor: I Will Not Support A Filibuster Of Your Nomination | Home | Baucus Takes A Jab At Obama; The White House Responds »

Associated Press Explains Its Thinking--Somewhat

In response to an inquiry from TPMDC, Associated Press spokesman Paul Colford sends over the following statement, explaining why they're reporting that House health care legislation will cost $1.5 trillion.

The Congressional Budget Office score of $1.04 trillion that the Democrats cite is the figure for the new health insurance "exchange."

However, that is a net figure, including about $237 billion in revenue raised from employer and individual mandates -- fees paid by those who don't provide or purchase care. Therefore, if you look at costs, the score on that is about $1.27 trillion.

There is also a separate piece of the bill covering Medicare. It includes about $350 billion in new spending (the biggest single piece is for the so-called "doc fix," which involves the payment rate to doctors under Medicare).

And now the AP is out with an article saying similar things, but in more detail--and, crucially, reiterating the $1.5 trillion price tag. In its new piece, AP concludes that the total projected outlays of the new bill will be $1.65 trillion and that total offsets and revenues will amount to $1.3 trillion. Subtract the two and you get a cost to the federal budget of $350 billion--significantly less than the CBO concluded.

This still leaves a lot of questions unanswered, and I've passed them along to AP. First of all, there's the question of whether it's standard practice for the AP to use CBO's bottom line when reporting the cost of legislation, or whether it's normal practice for the AP to disaggregate legislation and report that it costs as much as the bill's total outlays, regardless of offsets and revenues.

Second, and more crucially, did the $1.5 trillion figure come from this sort of analysis, or did it come from the claims of an anonymous Democratic aide? After all, if the AP's using outlays as their metric, then they wouldn't use the $1.5 trillion figure. They'd use $1.65 trillion.

On the merits, we're running the AP's numbers and by budget experts to see if they stack up correctly. The CBO analyzes legislation's impact on the federal budget, and it's fairly standard practice for journalists to characterize the CBO's conclusions as the bill's "cost." But the first AP report came out shortly after the CBO released its analysis, and attributed the $1.5 trillion figure to an anonymous Democratic aide--and that seems like the key issue here.


26 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

Thank you for this. Real reporting and substantive follow-up thinking.

Someone at TPM please take Beutler out for a few beers tonight!

user-pic

(Probably a Lieberman/Nelson aide).

user-pic

Agreed. Good work. This is one of the reasons I keep coming back to TPM.....

user-pic

Good follow up. On the face of it, it seems unusual for the AP to deconstruct a CBO estimate, and publish their own conclusion.

user-pic

Unusual only because it is a Democratic Congress and a Democratic president.

user-pic

So, when the Democrats hold Congress the AP uses shoddy journalistic tactics and when the Republican are in power they don't?

user-pic

No, when Republicans are in power, the AP closes its investigative division. When Democrats are in power, they staff it with out-of-work Republicans.

user-pic

Ding Ding Ding! You win the prize.

user-pic

They were spun.

Simple questions/simple answers...

user-pic

you simply provide a simpleton's answer

the broader and truer answer is that the AP went to someone whom they KNEW would spin them the way they wanted to be spun

the AP is no longer the AP and may never be again. it is no longer a trustworthy news source. it is in the hands of partisans. it's bought and sold by fat-cat Republicans.

deal with it, if you can handle the truth.

user-pic

Geez. A trillion here, a trillion there, and pretty soon we're talkin' about real money.

user-pic

I agree the source of this figure is the most interesting part of the story. But, maybe the price tag debate is getting overblown a bit, can't we just stipulate that we're looking at 1 to 2 Trillion. Health care is a huge mess and something needs to be done. Why?, because of the overall cost. This is a lot of money, but we're just splitting hairs nailing down these estimates.

user-pic

Well more accurate numbers will come out soon most likely.

user-pic

This convoluted explanation makes them sound even stupider than just saying they heard it from some Blue Dog's secretary.

user-pic

How often does major legislation cost less than originally projected? I don't know the answer, that's why I'm asking.

I remember all the times the Bush Administration say something was going to cost 30 billion and then it ended up costing from 10 to 50 times that much.

I want to see this bill pass, and the country needs it to pass, but I'd like to see more aggressive cost-reducing measures. It would be great if the public option could take some of the innovative measures to cut costs, such as having a lot of the rules-based diagnostic stuff done by nurses, physician's assistants or even expert systems. That works well in other countries, and is inevitable anyway. Maybe even some limited tort reform, which would make it a lot harder for Republicans to oppose.

user-pic
I remember all the times the Bush Administration say something was going to cost 30 billion and then it ended up costing from 10 to 50 times that much.

that's the difference between the WH OMB and the CBO. indeed it's the very reason for the CBO's existence.

user-pic

Good God, Fournier is spinning hard for the GOP.

user-pic

I see the problem here: my calculations say this health care bill will cost us more like $3 trillion, because my methodology is to use as many years worth of data as I need to get the scary figure I need.

My food cost for the next ten years is projected to cost me $75,000, so where am I ever going to come up with $75,000? Maybe I need to fast 3 days a week? (I would have used 20 years of data, for around $500,000, considering inflation, but I just can't credibly claim to live another 20 years.)

user-pic

AP breaking news: CBO estimates that Obama's health care package will cost 1 QUADRILLION DOLLARS over the next 700 years.

user-pic

How many wars in Iraq does that equate to?

user-pic

According to the LA Times, the total cost of the Iraq War will reach $700 billion by the end of 2009. So that's $700 billion divided by seven years of war = $100 billion a year. Health care reform, using the CBO's score, costs $1.02 trillion over 10 years. So that's also about $100 billion a year.

Now we know the opportunity cost of Shrub's little ego trip: for the price of Saddam's pearl handled pistols, we could have bought near-universal health care instead.

user-pic

OMG YOU NEED A FOOD BAILOUT!

Actually, I'll take one of those...

user-pic

Brilliant work TPM. The more we question "news" outlets on the accuracy of their reporting, the less apt they are to make shit up. The reverse is also true, if no one ever questions what they say, they can pretty much say anything they want.

So again, great job and please keep pushing back and asking the necessary questions.

user-pic

Please ask AP where they were when the figures for the Medicare Prescription Drug program was announced!

user-pic

The AP reporter fell asleep that night after Tom Duhlay extended the voting period till 2am.

Seriously I would love TPM to do some serious number crunching on the healthcare bill. What exactly is this 1 trillion buying. These numbers don't even sound right. 237 billion for "fines" or whatever you want to call them is only $500/person over ten years if you are basing it on 45 million uninsured. I bet there's a whole lot of cos. out there who'll pay $500 for a fine rather than provide $5,000 worth of coverage. And the 1 trillion is about $2,000/person over 10 yrs if based on 45 million uninsured.

user-pic

that would be "$500 per person per year for 10 years", and "$2000 per person per year for 10 years".
phrasing things as "over 10 years" can be a bit confusing, and throwing gargantuan numbers around simply by extending the time frame (for 10 years, for 100 years, whatever) is only a simplistic way to foment fear and anger among those who cannot or do not want to think for themselves.
IMHO ;)

Leave a comment

Advertisement
Please disable your adblocker!
Ads are how we pay the bills!

Subscribe

Josh
Marshall

Bio

Matt
Cooper

Bio

Eric
Kleefeld

Bio

Brian
Beutler

Bio

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address