TPMDC

GOP Meme: Senate Health Care Bill Actually Costs $2.5 Trillion

Spread the word. Share this article on Facebook!

Share

Sen. John Ensign (R-NV)

Share

Twitter Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

Whenever a Democratic agenda item spends some time in the spotlight--be it health care or energy--Republicans do a little hocus pocus and claim that, whatever the CBO might believe, the true costs of reform are sky high. So it's no surprise that the new GOP line regarding the Senate health care bill is that it's actually three times more expensive over a 10 year window than the CBO says it will be.

Where does this number--$2.5 trillion--come from? In this USA Today counterpoint, Sen. John Ensign (R-NV), cites this article in The Hill. But the article in question simply quotes Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) who seems to pull the number out of thin air. "When fully implemented, it will cost $2.5 trillion," McConnell said.

And where did McConnell get this idea?

A bit of digging suggests the number originated in a press release from Budget Committee ranking member Judd Gregg (R-NH), written the morning after the CBO unveiled its analysis. It reads "American taxpayers are about to see an unprecedented expansion of the federal government that will cost a staggering $2.5 trillion when fully implemented."

The underlying critique has a sliver of merit to it. Democrats did indeed diminish the cost over the first 10 years (2010-2019) by delaying the tax-and-benefit provisions for a until 2014, long after the bill becomes law. They felt as if they needed to push some key reforms down the road to keep the bill's CBO score from exceeding Obama's $900 billion top line. Hence Gregg's caveat "when fully implemented." But even if you were to start the clock in 2014, and stop it in 2024, the number $2.5 trillion seems to have been made up entirely out of whole cloth.

And, of course, this critique elides the fact that, whatever the federal responsibility for health care becomes as a result of this bill, the total package is projected to dramatically reduce the deficit in both the near and long terms.

Then again, I guess Democrats probably don't mind too much when John Ensign is presented as a prominent face of the Republican party.

Comments (31) | Join the Conversation!

Recommend Recommend (1)

November 23, 2009 3:55 PM   

man, you sure could bang a lot of married staffers for $2.5 trillion.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 23, 2009 3:58 PM   

I think he meant to say "2.5 Gazillion".

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 23, 2009 4:16 PM   

Have you noticed how the cost accoprding to the Repugs seems to have creeped up over the past few weeks? One Trillion, to Over a Trillion, to 1.5 Trillion, to Two Trillion, now the new entry;
2.5 Trillion. This new number was mentioned on a Sunday News show by Repug Senator Kaye Baily Hutchinson.

December 34th, Senator Jim DeMint; 'this new government take over of the medical system will cost 26 Trillion dollars!'

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 23, 2009 4:47 PM    in reply to JohnW1141

They do that with all numbers. Remember the rally counts? Bachmann's went from a couple thousand to 100,000 in less than an hour. And...what were the actual numbers?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 23, 2009 4:23 PM   

December 34th, Senator Jim DeMint; 'this new government take over of the medical system will cost 26 Trillion dollars!'

December 38th, Rep. Michelle Bachman on Fox: this socialized government run takeover of our medical system will not only euthanize Granny, but will also cost eleventy kadrillion dollars!!! Sean Hannity: how can those socialist Democrats sleep at night?


Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 23, 2009 4:30 PM   

This may be a good story, but what's up with the writing style? TPM/DC is so desperately trying to read like a cross between HuffPo and Fox News, it would have been funny if it wasn't a little pathetic. Be that as it may, at least it's clear that opinion journalism as opposed to news reporting is where we're headed here.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 23, 2009 5:05 PM    in reply to Lalo35adm

Your CONCERN! is appreciated by the TPM editors I am sure....

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 24, 2009 12:02 PM    in reply to Lalo35adm

Yeah get back to me when YOUR blog has even 1 tenth of 1 percent of the readers as TPM, douchebag.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 23, 2009 4:44 PM   

Either you accept CBO's numbers or you don't. It is as simple as that.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 23, 2009 4:52 PM   

Do they have any numbers for what the WARS actually cost?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 23, 2009 5:09 PM    in reply to BendixG15

Here's a clue kid. This years deficit is larger than Bush's total for his first seven years in office. Check the chart. And the chart doesn't include healthcare.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 23, 2009 5:42 PM    in reply to shooter242

shooter says:

Here's a clue kid. This years deficit is larger than Bush's total for his first seven years in office.

what part of this years deficit is tied directly to Bush?

And don't forget the starting point, Bush started with no deficit.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 23, 2009 6:04 PM    in reply to JohnW1141

He started with no deficit, and conveniently didn't include the cost of war in the "deficit". Nice racket, if you can get it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 23, 2009 6:11 PM    in reply to shooter242

That's a bald-faced lie.

Source: Table 1.1 at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy10/hist.html

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 24, 2009 12:04 PM    in reply to shooter242

Here's a clue shooter. Starting with Reagan, the republican deficit is over $5 trillion. Democrats, less than $50 billion. SUCK IT LOSER!!!!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 23, 2009 4:59 PM   

Senator Integrity, amirite?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 23, 2009 5:03 PM   

If it's going to cost a trillion for five years of the healthcare bill (rounding up from $900 billion) then $2.5 trillion seems like a reasonable guess. It's probably low considering the history of other Govt. programs. And especially low if you consider the crucial detail of eliminating $500 billion or so in Medicare.
Keep up the good work.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 23, 2009 5:16 PM    in reply to shooter242

Nice. You rounded up from $900 billion to $1 trillion. Because hey, the difference is just $100 billion. It's just adding another 10%. Chump change. Now I understand how these numbers keep going up on winger minds.

Also, the cost estimate is $900 billion over TEN years, not five. But that's ok, nobody expected any reading comprehension from you.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 23, 2009 6:47 PM    in reply to Xantar

Actually the taxes are for ten years, the benefits don't begin until 2014. Five years from now. So if five years of bennies cost $900 billion then ten years should cost $1.8 trillion. This of course is only if $500 billion is cut from Medicare. That isn't happening.
That alone is $2.3 trillion and given the lying about what programs cost vs. actual cost and $2.5 trillion is low. $5 trillion is more likely. This of course is just one program.

We have a $1.4 trillion or so deficit this year. Consider that all the personal income taxes we pay for the year is only $1.2 trillion (2006). In short, every penny we hand over in income taxes is already dwarfed by the Govt credit card.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 23, 2009 8:32 PM    in reply to shooter242

Not only do you get the starting date of the benefits and taxes wrong, you ignore CBO's claim that it cuts deficits even further over the second years. That kind of deflates your entire (made up) point.

This of course is only if $500 billion is cut from Medicare. That isn't happening.

Actually, it is happening. This notion that further Congressional action will be needed to ratify the cuts that are already written into the bill is the silliest lie to come from the right in quite some time. The bill doesn't make recommendations for cuts. It actually cuts the f'n bill.

Of course, the hilarious thing is that the GOPers, including yourself, are now making this claim after campaigning for months on how HCR would cut Medicare. Do you guys think we just don't notice your complete inconsistency? Pick a story and stick to it.

And your bizarre claim that CBO is lying is just an expression of your ridiculous desperation. The last time CBO scored a new health care program (Medicare Part D), they overestimated the cost by 35%.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 23, 2009 9:14 PM    in reply to Stroszek

Don't get your panties in a wad. The Senate bill is just a suggestion. Nothing real happens until the conference version comes out, and there is no telling what that's going to look like.
Fortunately, the odds are good the whole thing will fail in one or both houses. Cap and Trade is now history, and surrender in Afghanistan possible. All in all it's going to be a pretty good Presidency. Heh.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 24, 2009 1:10 PM    in reply to shooter242

Shooter passes complete judgement after 10 months!

Nice regurgitation of the Righty talking points, BTW, kudos ...

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

LFC

user-pic

November 23, 2009 5:29 PM    in reply to shooter242

shooter2 said... If it's going to cost a trillion for five years of the healthcare bill (rounding up from $900 billion) then $2.5 trillion seems like a reasonable guess.

If A then Z? Sounds just like the Republicans cited about. A figure of $1 trillion isn't scary enough, so they/you pull a figure out of your asses that is more than double, but have zero, zippo, nada, and nothing to back it up.

Yeah, after the "borrow and spend" years we just went through when the GOP had some level of control, these are the people I want to trust with the national purse strings.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 23, 2009 6:01 PM    in reply to shooter242

Yeah, if you just make shit up and exercise a blatant disregard for the truth, it makes plenty of sense.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 24, 2009 12:09 PM    in reply to shooter242

It's a guess all right, but the word "reasonable" doesn't really fit here. Are you sure you understand the meaning of "reasonable" because it appears that you don't.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

LFC

user-pic

November 23, 2009 5:25 PM   

It must be killing the GOP that when they passed a health care bill (Medicare Part D), they didn't even bother having a discussion about paying for it, but when the Dems are trying to pass one, they're working hard at paying for it.

The Dems have been the fiscal conservatives for the past two decades at least. The GOP have not been fiscal conservatives for closer to 30, ever since Reagan jacked up spending when things were bad, and then continued jacking up spending when things got better.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 23, 2009 6:06 PM   

Of course, he will still be promoted by Republicans simply because hw isn't a Democrat... and the Democrat idiots will be supported by Democrats simply because they are not Republicans... and this once great nation will continue it's decline simply because we have an urge to keep voting in our own idiots... IMHO

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 24, 2009 2:50 AM   

Dr. Evil: "This bill actually costs...100 trillion dollars."

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 24, 2009 8:41 AM   

The GOP can get away with this because the press does not hold them accountable for whatever crap spews from their mouths, no matter how untrue or how insulting it may be.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 24, 2009 9:27 AM    in reply to mk3872

Right. The MSM media just repeats what they say, "Sen. SO & SO say, 'blahblahblah.'" Hardly any effort to check the facts. Once it repeated in the media it gives it legitimacy.

That's the GOP modus operandus. Just get as much as they can out there and see what sticks (i.e., death panels, government take over of health care, socialism, birth certificates, ACORN).

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 7, 2010 12:17 PM   

Nice. You rounded up from $900 billion to $1 trillion. Because hey, the difference is just $100 billion. It's just adding another 10%. Chump change. Now I understand how these numbers keep going up on winger minds.

Also, the cost estimate is $900 billion over TEN years, not five. But that's ok, nobody expected any reading comprehension from you.

m65 kamagra

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Leave a comment

Your response:

Follow us!

Most Popular

TPM Stories Now Surging on