TPM LiveWire

CBO Releases Numbers On House Health Care Bill

Rachel Slajda | October 29, 2009, 4:11PM

Spread the word. Share this article on Facebook!

CBO, Health care, Nancy Pelosi

Send to a friend!

The Congressional Budget Office has just released its score of the House health care reform bill, which was unveiled this morning.

The bill will reduce the deficit by $104 billion over the first 10 years, according to the CBO. It will also cost $894 billion. (President Obama has said he won't sign a bill that costs more than $900 billion.)

Check out the full report, in PDF form, here.

Join the Conversation!

31 comments

Recommend Recommend (0)

marklouis

October 29, 2009 4:22 PM

So what excuse will Lieberman and Bayh give now?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

amabo666

October 29, 2009 4:32 PM

The Obamanator said he wouldn't sign the Defense bill either if it had the $100 billion for extra F35 engines. So the cost really doesn't mean anything in the long run. Pelosi, Reid et al will be long gone when the cost for this 'reform' comes home to roost.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

October 29, 2009 4:50 PM in reply to amabo666

Translated from the Republitroll: "The CBO scoring showing that it lowers the deficit are irrelevent in the face of the compelling logic spoken by the voices in my head which proclaim that it must add to the deficit because its the guvinment and Democrat and guvinmint program and tax and spend oh, it's just awful."

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

AnswerFrog

October 30, 2009 10:12 AM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

Wow, so the House bill saves more money than the much vaunted Finance bill?

What kind of counterfactual excuses will the Blue Dog / GOP crooks give on this one?

Anyone else remember how CBO scores were once trumpeted as the Final Word on an issue. Now that the scores don't go their way, I'm sure they will be dismissed.

Kind of reminds me of how "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter" unless a Democrat is president, and then it is Armeggedon. Do these folks have to consult a little chart to tell them what to think each morning?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

synchronicity

October 29, 2009 4:37 PM

Leiberman and Bayh make money personally when health insurance stocks are up. They don't care much what is in the bill. The public option is supported by over 70% of the CT population. Lieberman clearly does not care what the majority of his constituents want.

Reid and Durbin stated that they will still consider reconciliatino if necessary. At this point, I think it 'is' necessary.

I would rather see them strengthen the bill and pass it through reconciliation to see what sticks than have an ugly fight in the senate that produces nothing.

No public option and they can just about kiss the whole thing goodbye because the mandate will NOT fly without a public option or one that does to little or exists in trigger only...

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Icon

October 29, 2009 4:57 PM in reply to synchronicity

Reconciliation isn't really as good an idea as advertised. If they try reconciliation the Parliamentarian will probably poke a number of big holes in it. There's a lot in the bill that affects the budget, but there's a number of things (such as the individual mandate) that do not affect spending or taxes and only incidentally affects the budget (by affecting the supply and demand for transactions that generate other taxes not in the bill itself).

Reid could fire the Parliamentarian and replace him with a partisan who will keep whatever the majority wants in the bill, but doing so would likely establish a precedent that the majority party just hires a partisan parliamentarian and passes its controversial bills through reconciliation. As a matter of practicality, that's little different than pursuing the nuclear option.

...And going that route (or the nuclear option), though fully legal, would be hypocritical, since the Dems worked so hard to keep the filibuster a few years ago.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

theWalrus

October 29, 2009 5:10 PM in reply to Icon

How about the nuclear option? Declare the filibuster unconsititional..call a point of order..get a simple majority vote for it..the rule is changed.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Icon

October 29, 2009 5:31 PM in reply to theWalrus

I think the main problem with either strategy (i.e. nuclear option or reconciliation with a partisan parliamentarian) is that it's the Dems flip-flopping on the issue of the filibuster.

Back in 2005 when the nuclear option seemed like it was going to get used, the Dems fought tooth and nail to stop it. If the Dems were to use it (or the partisan parliamentarian reconciliation strategy), they'd concede the GOP a talking point.

"The Dems like the filibuster when they're not in power, but hate it when they own the place," is what I forsee GOPs saying. Granted, the GOP is doing exactly the same thing; trying to kill the filibuster in 2005 but now using it more than any session of Congress ever. But the point is that the GOP gets a talking point and the Dems only get a talking counterpoint. It ends in the GOP's favor.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Tanjaoui

October 29, 2009 7:08 PM in reply to Icon

The Senate seems to stymie so much innovative legislation - good and horrible. I'd rather see legislation pass more easily and, if it had terrible consequences, vote those responsible out of office. I say this in the full belief that once people experienced socially responsible legislation, they'd never go back. We'd end up with moderate, social democratic systems of government as in Europe. Most Americans can't imagine the lack of material anxiety that Europeans get for their money. It's a humane system.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

AnswerFrog

October 30, 2009 10:42 AM in reply to Icon

The nuclear option might be the way to go. Historically, the fillibuster has mostly been used to stop progress. It was infamously used to delay civil rights. Getting rid of it will hurt the GOP more.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

AnswerFrog

October 30, 2009 10:47 AM in reply to Icon

And other things like sunsetting etc. The Bush tax cuts expire next year, I believe, because they were onyl passed thru reconcilliation.

Better than nothing, but a last resort imho

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

mike from Arlington

October 29, 2009 4:40 PM

How many people it covers is pretty important too.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Frinky

October 29, 2009 4:43 PM

I'm still holding my breath till I see it done but I'm hopeful.

I just hope it helps to drive down the costs I pay for my employee's plan. It's nearly $90,000 a year for just 8 people.
I just got my renewal for next year that will increase my payments 18%. Last December it went up 27%. That's a whopping 45% in one calendar year.
That's why I laugh at the scary stories of how reform is going to make our costs shoot up. They have shot up all on their own.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

LFC

October 29, 2009 4:45 PM

This is about the 3rd or 4th bill produced by Democrats that have been submitted to the CBO, and yet the GOP still haven't produced even a single bill that could be scored by the CBO. And we should listen to their views ... why?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

agio

October 29, 2009 4:46 PM

The bill will reduce the deficit by $104 billion over the first 10 years

Saving 1.4 billion per year ain't chump change.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

agio

October 29, 2009 4:47 PM in reply to agio

Make that $10.4 billion. My math skills are ok, my typing skills, not so much.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

merlot

October 29, 2009 4:51 PM in reply to agio

And the $10.4 billions doesn't include the increased productivity of a healthier American workforce.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

agio

October 29, 2009 5:26 PM in reply to merlot

Absolutely. Not factoring in the human cost, which is huge.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Odel Roo

October 29, 2009 5:10 PM in reply to agio

of course it is chump change - you see Harry can blow off $54 billion as insignificant this is mere crumbs.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

hunter

October 29, 2009 5:32 PM in reply to agio

I was just wondering about the math, actually. Rachel says the bill will "reduce the deficit by $104 billion over the first 10 years" but is that really what she meant? Your $10.4B/year number would be right if the bill reduces the debt by $104B over 10 years. But if it really reduces the deficit by that amount...wouldn't that be the amount saved in the tenth year? With the annual deficit effects ramping up to that number?

Or did Rachel just misspeak, and she really means that it saves $104B from the national debt over the next decade?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

hunter

October 29, 2009 5:43 PM in reply to hunter

Looking now at Brian Beutler's story I'm guessing Rachel and Brian need a refresher course on debt vs. deficit. Here's the line from his piece:

Over the first 10 years, revenues and savings are projected to exceed new spending (aka it reduces the deficit) by $104 billion.

If revenues and savings are projected to exceed new spending in a ten-year window by $104B, that reduces the debt by that amount (not counting interest effects). The deficit is the annual effect on the debt, and should presumably be positive (raising the deficit) in the first years but ramping up significantly more negative (lowering the deficit) than $10.4B by the tenth year.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

ScottW

October 29, 2009 4:48 PM

All this means is that the CBO is a commie Obama lovin' group this week. Next week when they give R's numbers to support their cause, they will be back to flag lovin' Americans.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

October 29, 2009 4:52 PM in reply to ScottW

The CBO can't score either a blank piece of paper or a pile of bullshit, and ten months into this Congress, that's all they've got.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Icon

October 29, 2009 5:05 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

Hear, hear!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Tanjaoui

October 29, 2009 4:49 PM

I wish they were scoring HR 676, single payer Medicare for all.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

LFC

October 29, 2009 4:52 PM

I love all the Republican Congressmen complaining about the spending, but didn't even attempt to defray $1 of the cost of:

- Medicare Drug Prescription
- War in Afghanistan
- War in Iraq
- Bush Tax Cuts

Dear GOP: This is what fiscal conservatism looks like. You have no credibility in this area. Please shut up.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

CranialRectalLoopback

October 29, 2009 5:04 PM

Can they use reconciliation on a bill that states simply:

"Medicare is available for all citizens"

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Icon

October 29, 2009 5:07 PM in reply to CranialRectalLoopback

Probably, but even if they used reconciliation for that I doubt they'd have the 51 votes necessary to pass it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Tanjaoui

October 29, 2009 7:17 PM in reply to Icon

It would at least ignite public discussion on the issue. If they scored such a system, they'd find it saved a lot more than what they're saving now. But, as I've noted elsewhere, that isn't really the point, now. Senators have to mollify their corporate sponsors, the President has to pass anything at all and call it a victory to move on.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Jezreel

October 29, 2009 5:35 PM

This is very good news. According to the CBO, the Senate HELP and the Finance Bill will save 81 billion each over 10 years. The House Bill not only cuts the deficit more than the Senate Bill, it also covers more people and it does NOT include an Opt Out option.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

LFC

October 29, 2009 5:56 PM in reply to Jezreel

Oh, but I want an opt out option. Let the Republicans put their asses where their mouths are. (Oh, wait. That's exactly where their mouths are located.)

Anyway, if they don't believe in the public option, then let them take it away from their states' citizens. They don't have to be part of it. Of course, they'll be forced to take the risk that neighboring states see significantly better coverage and lower costs and they'll get their butts kicked out of office, but that's all a part of taking a stand, right?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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