Matthew Yglesias » AP Keeps Overstating Cost of Health Bill by $500 Billion

Jul 16th, 2009 at 9:56 am

AP Keeps Overstating Cost of Health Bill by $500 Billion

It’s very hard to know exactly what the ten-year cost of a complicated piece of legislation will be. But the Congressional Budget Office is pretty good at doing these projections. And standard practice in the media is to use CBO figures when discussing the cost of legislation. Thus, when the CBO says the House health bill costs $1 trillion over ten years, I’m inclined to call it a bill that costs $1 trillion over ten years.

And then there’s the AP where they just decided to make up a higher number and stick with it come what may.

Update Brian Beutler points out that Newt Ginrgich is now running with the AP numbers entrenching them as part of the conventional wisdom.

Comments
25

Filed under: Health Care, taxes,

25 Responses to “AP Keeps Overstating Cost of Health Bill by $500 Billion”

Halfdan Says:
July 16th, 2009 at 10:02 am
Sounds like a Democrat trying to scuttle the bill.
joe from Lowell Says:
July 16th, 2009 at 10:04 am
Do we know where the extra half trillion dollars are?

Yes, they’re east of Baghdad, west, south, and north, somewhat.
Al Says:
July 16th, 2009 at 10:05 am
Seems like Matthew doesn’t understand what the term “net” means.
Pender Says:
July 16th, 2009 at 10:05 am
But the health bill doesn’t kick in until 2013, so the CBO is really only measuring its cost over six and a half years. To get from 6.5 to 10 you multiply by (10/6.5) = ~1.5. $1 trillion * 1.5 = $1.5 trillion.
James Robertson Says:
July 16th, 2009 at 10:12 am
Given the *cough* record *cough* of the CBO, pushing up by half is a conservative estimate.
calling all toasters Says:
July 16th, 2009 at 10:18 am
Pender–
So the bill costs $500 billion before it “kicks in”?
Fascinating.
Helter Says:
July 16th, 2009 at 10:20 am
The CBO projections for the cost of the medicare drug benefit for 2004-2013 were a net $394 billion in 2003. A year or two later, the projected costs were over $500 billion. The CBO puts out well-reasoned projections, but it’s not like the projections need to be treated the same as fact.
calling all toasters Says:
July 16th, 2009 at 10:24 am
The CBO puts out well-reasoned projections, but it’s not like the projections need to be treated the same as fact.

But made-up shit does?
ron Says:
July 16th, 2009 at 10:25 am
The AP has been going more and more rightwing in recent years.
Halfdan Says:
July 16th, 2009 at 10:31 am
Forget dollar figures. Even saying “$1 trillion” makes it sound as though it’s adding to the budget. The health care plan is projected by the CBO to be revenue neutral. That’s the important part.
Helter Says:
July 16th, 2009 at 10:34 am
But made-up shit does?

You can treat them anyway you like. Just don’t treat projections as facts. .
Halfdan Says:
July 16th, 2009 at 10:36 am
You can treat them anyway you like. Just don’t treat projections as facts. .

Um, the projection *is* a fact. It’s a fact that the CBO projected the cost to be $1 trillion. It’s not a fact that anyone has projected the cost to be $1.5 trillion. And I guarantee you that if the CBO *had* projected the cost to be $1.5 trillion, Republicans would accept it as fact.
Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle Says:
July 16th, 2009 at 11:02 am
ron:
In fact, the head of the AP D.C. bureau was outed for being a Rove flunkie. His name? Ron Fournier.
OSheaman Says:
July 16th, 2009 at 11:10 am
What Calvin said. And people wondered why progressives were freaking out when Fournier was named bureau chief.
Eric Says:
July 16th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
And I guarantee you that if the CBO *had* projected the cost to be $1.5 trillion, Republicans would accept it as fact.

This is absolute nonsense. If the CBO has projected the cost to be $1.5 trillion, Republicans would accept it as $2.25 trillion.
anonymous Says:
July 16th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
The AP has been going more and more rightwing in recent years.

Seriously. Stick to the AFP from now on.
Pender Says:
July 16th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
calling all toasters – No, but the AP didn’t say that. It merely called the bill a “$1.5 trillion plan” or somesuch.

Maybe the AP should have been clearer about where the number came from, but I do think they’re right to counter the Enron-like accounting of pushing back the start date and pretending that makes the plan cheaper on the whole (aside from normal discounting to present value).

Look at it this way. Suppose a legislative initiative would cost $100 billion per year. Suppose the public appetite supported only 10% of that. Suppose as a result Congress set the plan to go into effect in 2018. The CBO dutifully reports that its “ten-year cost” (by which they internally mean from 2009 to 2019) would be only $100 billion. Do you really think that’s a fair representation of the bill’s true cost? No, of course not — it’s either $100B per year starting in 2019, or $1 trillion per ten years starting in 2019.
Max424 Says:
July 16th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Isn’t the whole idea of this ridiculously painful exercise is to save the country mega-money in the long run?

The argument should be focused on how much we are going to save. If you are saving, cost is irrelevant. The Democrats should just pick a figure -say $2.5 trillion in savings over 10 year- and repeat over and over in metronomic fashion. The political battleground would then shift to arguments over savings, not costs. This isn’t brain surgery. Always: accentuate the positive. Aretha understands.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IP9h40z0sk&feature=related
LittlePig Says:
July 16th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
by which they internally mean from 2009 to 2019

I’m wondering what to call the show: “The Amazing Pender”, or “Pender, the CBO Whisperer”?. Is a Ouija board involved?
Pender Says:
July 16th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
No Ouija Board, LittlePig, just reading. Here’s the CBO report:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc10430/House_Tri-Committee-Rangel.pdf

Note the last column in the chart on the last page: “2010-2019.” Note that it totals up to $1 trillion. Note that the changes don’t start until 2013, and it’s really only years 2013-2019 that add up to a trillion bucks. Next time please do your research before being a dick.
Ian Says:
July 16th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
They should do this with Pentagon procurement estimates. 1.5x isn’t a big enough multiplier, as a rule, but it’d be a start.
The AP’s $500 Billion Dollar Health Care “Mistake” | The Faster Times Says:
July 16th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
[...] as TPM reports, Newt Gingrich has picked up on the number. As Yglesias notes, this is how mistaken ideas become part of the accepted conventional [...]
[UPDATED] The AP’s $500 Billion Dollar Health Care “Mistake” | Media Analysis Says:
July 16th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
[...] as TPM reports, Newt Gingrich has picked up on the number. As Yglesias notes, this is how mistaken ideas become part of the accepted conventional [...]
Mario Says:
July 16th, 2009 at 9:31 pm
Something they taught me back at Emerson Hall was that before you jump on a major philosopher for having committed an elementary mistake, you ought to consider the possibility that you are the one making the mistake. It seems to me that the same principle applies here. Yglesias knows the AP is a good news source. And he knows that it would be odd for a news outfit like the AP to use incorrect numbers. But instead of considering the possibility that it was he, Yglesias, who’s not understanding the situation he assumes that the AP is blundering.
Health Care. (united health care, universal health care) » Blog Archive » Daily Health Care News - 7/17/09 Says:
July 18th, 2009 at 3:02 am
[...] AP Keeps Overstating Cost of Health Bill by $500 Billion – Matt Yglesias [...]

Matt Yglesias

AP Keeps Overstating Cost of Health Bill by $500 Billion

25 Responses to “AP Keeps Overstating Cost of Health Bill by $500 Billion”

Blogroll