« | »

NYT: House Bill Will Cost $1.055 Trillion

From, of all places, the New York Times:

What the Health Care Bill Really Costs

By David M. Herszenhorn AND Robert Pear

October 29, 2009

So what does the House health care bill really cost?

Throughout Thursday, news accounts, including our own, focused on $894 billion, the total cost given out by aides to the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, before the official cost analysis was released by the Congressional Budget Office.

But a closer look at the budget office report suggests that the number everyone should have reported was $1.055 trillion, which is the gross cost of the insurance coverage provisions in the bill before taking account of certain new revenues, including penalties by individuals and employers who fail to meet new insurance requirements in the bill.

According to the budget office, the overall cost of the bill is more than offset by revenues from new taxes or cuts in spending by the government, resulting in a reduction in future budget deficits of $104 billion.

All of these figures cover a 10-year period from 2010 to 2019.

The $894 billion figure that was initially seized on was not chosen at random. It is featured prominently in the budget office report as the net cost of the insurance coverage provisions in the bill. But the net coverage cost is not the number that lawmakers, the news media and other experts and analysts have focused on in recent months…

In a news release shortly before House Democrats held a rally to unveil the bill, Ms. Pelosi’s office wrote: “The legislation’s coverage cost will be $894 billion over 10 years, fully paid for.” And in her speech at the event, Ms. Pelosi said: “It reduces the deficits, meets President Obama’s call to keep the cost under $900 billion over 10 years, and it insures 36 million more Americans.”

Aides to Ms. Pelosi defended their decision to focus on the $894 billion figure. They also pointed out that in an “apples to apples” comparison — $1.055 trillion for the House bill vs. $829 billion for the Senate Finance measure — the House bill is projected to insure 7 million more people…

Politically, the cost issue is very sensitive. In a speech to Congress on Sept. 9, Mr. Obama said that the total cost of his plan to overhaul the health care system would be “around $900 billion.” …

Mind you, this is from the New York Times.

Of course it is buried on their ‘Prescriptions’ blog. But still.

And speaking of shocking things, The Times has also published a searchable version of the House healthcare bill.

If only our famously transparent Obama administration had thought of that.

This article was posted by Steve on Friday, October 30th, 2009. Comments are currently closed.

14 Responses to “NYT: House Bill Will Cost $1.055 Trillion”

  1. proreason says:

    Aside from the fact that we know $1 Tillion will actually be $10 Trillion, what exactly does the mythical $1 Trillion cover.

    Got a funny feeling that it DOES NOT cover the fees that uninsured people will be forced to pay at the point of a gun…….or the fines that small businesses will be forced to pay at the point of a gun…….or the increases in private insurance premiums that will occur as the government underpays for services…….or the true costs of the MASSIVE new bureaucracies that will be created…..or the MASSIVE inflation that will be trigggered by the tsunami of new spending.

    And of course, the mythical $1 Trillion is for 6 years of benefits, but 10 years of taxes. Did you know that?

  2. TerryAnne says:

    “The budget office has projected that in 2019 the number of uninsured would be 18 million under the House bill, compared with 25 million under the Senate Finance Committee measure.”

    Huh? Isn’t this system supposed to insure us all? [/sarcasm]

  3. MinnesotaRush says:

    Huge, huge consequences from another piece of junk legislation that doesn’t meet Constitutional muster anyway!

    The opposition needs to be that they have NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY whatsoever for any of this health care crap (and about 70% of all the crap that comes out of DC).

    The fed needs to be reigned in! Corralled. Detained. Arrested. Jailed. Assets siezed and returned to the Treasury.

    I gotta go lay down.

    • proreason says:

      “The opposition needs to be that they have NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY ”

      It won’t work.

      They have 5 votes on the Supreme Court.

    • MinnesotaRush says:

      Pro .. really wasn’t opining about whether it would work or not .. reflecting though that it would’ve made a difference at other points in our history.

      “Alexander’s Essay – October 29,2009” from “The Patriot Post” reminds us that, “Never before has there been more evidence of outright contempt for our Constitution than under the current liberal hegemony presiding over the executive and legislative branches of our federal government.”

      I couldn’t agree more! And how disgusting, “outright contempt for our Constitution”!

      He goes on to say (and I would encourage all of us patriotic Americans here at S&L .. and elsewhere .. to get ahold of a copy of the whole essay and share it widely), “However, if we are a nation of laws with a national government limited by our Constitution, and, indeed, we are, then Obama has no legal authority to “transform” our government.
      Those who laid our constitutional foundation were very clear about its limits on government.”

      Our Constitution’s principle author, James Madison, said, “If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.”

      There is an additional and HUGE problem though!

      And Alexander highlites it nicely by pointing out, “But too many among us have become so fixated on the superficial parameters of today’s political debates rather than demand an answer to that most essential question: What is the constitutional authority for Obama’s proposals now being debated in Congress?
      For example, amid all the acrimony over Obama’s transformation of health care, the debate should not be centered on which plan is better, but whether constitutional authority exists for any of the plans under consideration.
      Unfortunately, such inquiry is scarce, and hardly noted.”

      And that is very true! Not right in any regard; but true!

      How many of us knew .. thank you MSM (not) .. and again from Alexander, “In every successive Congress since 1995, conservative Arizona Republican Rep. John Shadegg has sponsored the Enumerated Powers Act (HR 1359), which requires that “Each Act of Congress shall contain a concise and definite statement of the constitutional authority relied upon for the enactment of each portion of that Act.”

      We all know that things may be different if THAT had been enacted; but, Alexander unfortunately informs us that, “The measure continues to fail, however, because of a dirty little secret: There is no legitimate constitutional authority for almost 70 percent of current federal government programs, and, thus, no authority for the collection of taxes to fund such activities.”

      So yeah, Pro .. “it” likely won’t work. Should. Should’ve. Sad that it won’t.

      Our Constitution has never failed us. Have we failed it?

      Has complacency and inaction coupled with purposeful ill intended deeds by those in positions of power infected our Republic past the point of no return? Are we to simply roll over and bemoan “It won’t work”. Or, are we to look for ways to make it work!

      Do we need to launch a huge effort to get the Enumerated Powers Act passed?
      Do we need to put huge efforts and resources behind organizations that demand Constitutional behavior by government and a true transformation of government back to Constitutional roots?

      Or, do we allow the continuation of the erosion that has got us here finish off the Republic and its’ Constitution?

      I’d like to think there’s far too many of “us” for that to happen. Heck .. I’m all for coming together and drafting a Re-Declaration of Independence. The abuses of power have got to again see the light of day and real change be ignited.

      One of the reasons I haven’t been posting as often here at S&L is that I’ve kicked off a little group here in MN in the spirit of the 56 Signers of the Declaration of Independence. Those courageous Americans pledged “their Lives, their Fortunes, and their Sacred Honor” and got this grand example of freedom and liberty in motion. We are in their debt! And the best way to honor their sacrifices and committment is to do all we can to keep it alive.

      We’ve got some ambitous goals; but needed to get started with something. Take a peek at our (initial) website if you care to (hope it’s okay to mention, Steve) – http://www.the56club.us – We certainly hope to gather momentum and help to push this thing in many productive directions.

      Who knows, Pro .. maybe even write that Re-Declaration.

      God Bless Us All .. God Bless America ..
      God Bless & Keep Our Troops Safe

    • proreason says:

      MR, well at least we have a mini-constitutional boomlet going with Mark Levin, Beck and others like the blogger you mention, Congressman Shadegg and your new web-site (which I’ve put in my favorites and will examine more closely later).

      One of the more difficult things to understand is why, after 230 years of success, people would willingly give up the foundation of our country for 50 sheckles.

      It really doesn’t speak well for Americans.

      When we take power back from the contemptable greedy criminal con artists, the ONE thing we have to absolutely get right is to get a large majority of SCOTUS’s who believe in the Constitution. As I’m seeing it now, that is more important even than than the War on Terrorism.

    • Liberals Demise says:

      “…more important than the War on Terrorism.”
      One in the same if you ask me, pro!

  4. BillK says:

    The Constitution is what the left wants it to be.

    The problem with finding anything to be a violation of the Constitution requires two things:

    1) “Standing.” This is the ambiguous definition used to dismiss most every complaint, most recently that of the “truthers.” Whether you believe their beliefs were wacko or not, they were not even heard because they “lacked standing” to bring a complaint.

    2) Judges willing to find it a violation of the Constitution at a lower level, let alone at the SCOTUS level. Good luck finding a judge who believes anything Obama does is unconstitutional, aside from not closing Gitmo sooner or not overturning “Dont ask, don’t tell” earlier.

  5. Liberals Demise says:

    They are going to push this into an armed confrontation with the people if they don’t cease and desist.
    It is as if the Town Hall’s didn’t happen or they are sooo arrogant to think we will lay down and let them run rough shod over us.

    They work for us not the other way around and it’s high time they were reminded!!

    • proreason says:

      You are correct.

      Everyone has his or her limits.

      Many are already there and await only a leader with the guts to act.

    • Right of the People says:

      My only fear with that is that the a-hole in the White House will use an armed revolt as an excuse to declare martial law and then there goes the whole shooting match. The only way for any uprising to have a chance is a pledge from the military to either join our side, which I think they are already or at worst, not act at all. It’s hard to stare down an M-1 or Bradley Fighting vehicle with only a pistol or rifle.

      Having said that, to quote the inspector in “Young Frankenstein”, “A riot is an ugly thing, and I think it’s time we had one.”


  6. canary says:

    Government run health care will need a new building and staff just for the Government run health laws and manuals.

  7. VMAN says:

    It would be nice to see a leader emerge. Rush, Beck and Hannity are all great but we need more.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »