The 'true' cost of health care reform; $2.6 trillion

Fudging numbers is a game everyone plays on Capitol Hill but not to the extent the Democrats have been lying about the true cost of Obamacare.

Greg D'Angelo at Heritage's Foundry blog pulls back the curtain:

As Heritage analysts noted earlier in the week, the Congressional Budget Office released its preliminary score of the bill (H.R. 3962) but too many in the media have not been reporting its true cost. The true cost is not the net spending on only the coverage related provisions ($897 billion) but rather the total gross spending for the coverage provisions ($1.05 trillion) as well as any additional spending in the bill (approximately $217 billion). That would raise the plan's price tag to about $1.5 trillion when including the roughly $210 billion cost of the "doc fix" is included. The "doc fix" refers to the undoing of the flawed Medicare payment update formula, which Congress created but has routinely stopped from being enforced. Under current law, that formula would result in a 20 percent reduction in doctors' pay under the Medicare program.The real story about the true cost is even more dramatic. The bill is front loaded with taxes, and back-loaded with spending in the first ten years. Since most of the spending in the House bill does not fully go into effect until 2014, the 10-year cost estimates based on the preliminary CBO score (for years 2010 through 2019) only account for six years of new spending under the plan. Once it is implemented (over a full 10-year window from years 2014 to 2023), the giant House health bill carries a price tag of $2.4 trillion, or as much as $2.6 trillion with the "doc fix."

The delay in implementing the plan is so that Obama can look into the cameras and swear that over the next 10 years (20110-19), the plan is revenue neutral (or at least on paper it is). As D'Angelo points out, that is extraordinarily dishonest. The actual cost during the first 10 years when the program is fully implemented is more than twice what the Democrats say it is.

Is there such a thing as "transparent lying?"



Fudging numbers is a game everyone plays on Capitol Hill but not to the extent the Democrats have been lying about the true cost of Obamacare.

Greg D'Angelo at Heritage's Foundry blog pulls back the curtain:

As Heritage analysts noted earlier in the week, the Congressional Budget Office released its preliminary score of the bill (H.R. 3962) but too many in the media have not been reporting its true cost. The true cost is not the net spending on only the coverage related provisions ($897 billion) but rather the total gross spending for the coverage provisions ($1.05 trillion) as well as any additional spending in the bill (approximately $217 billion). That would raise the plan's price tag to about $1.5 trillion when including the roughly $210 billion cost of the "doc fix" is included. The "doc fix" refers to the undoing of the flawed Medicare payment update formula, which Congress created but has routinely stopped from being enforced. Under current law, that formula would result in a 20 percent reduction in doctors' pay under the Medicare program.

The real story about the true cost is even more dramatic. The bill is front loaded with taxes, and back-loaded with spending in the first ten years. Since most of the spending in the House bill does not fully go into effect until 2014, the 10-year cost estimates based on the preliminary CBO score (for years 2010 through 2019) only account for six years of new spending under the plan. Once it is implemented (over a full 10-year window from years 2014 to 2023), the giant House health bill carries a price tag of $2.4 trillion, or as much as $2.6 trillion with the "doc fix."

The delay in implementing the plan is so that Obama can look into the cameras and swear that over the next 10 years (20110-19), the plan is revenue neutral (or at least on paper it is). As D'Angelo points out, that is extraordinarily dishonest. The actual cost during the first 10 years when the program is fully implemented is more than twice what the Democrats say it is.

Is there such a thing as "transparent lying?"