Video: Reid dismisses $54 billion in tort-reform savings
posted at 10:12 am on October 15, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Harry Reid struggles with math as well as with common sense in this clip from yesterday, which highlights Reid’s argument against considering tort reform as part of the overhaul of the American health-care system. Reid gets his numbers wrong, gets his scale wrong, and in the process admits that the actual cost of the Baucus plan is not $829 billion but $2 trillion:
SENATOR HARRY REID: He talked about CBO saying that there would be $54 billion saved each year if we put caps on medical malpractice and put some restrictions — tort reform — $54 billion. Sounds like a lot of money, doesn’t it, Mr. President? The answer is yes. But remember, we’re talking about $2 trillion, $54 billion compared to $2 trillion. You can do the math. We can all do the math. It’s a very small percent.
First, the actual scale for the CBO analysis is ten years, not each year. That scale follows the Congressional stage-setting of costs over the next ten years for ObamaCare in order to determine the impact on the deficit. With that in mind, remember too that the $54 billion is what the CBO expects in deficit savings, not overall savings to the health-care industry, which is what the Senate and the House claim they’re trying to accomplish. The overall savings come to at least $110 billion over that same period, perhaps as high as $135 billion, or about 0.5% of the entire cost of the industry — which may still be a small percentage, but is significant in terms of actual money spent. It would come to over $1000 per family in the first ten years.
For that matter, a comprehensive tort reform bill would save money in other industries as well, but the CBO hasn’t scored that yet.
As for doing the math, Reid appears to have two problems with it. One is just the Beltwayitis that renders Senators and Representatives incapable of understanding that $54 billion is a lot of money, especially in savings to a ballooning deficit. The more pressing political problem is his math on the Baucus plan. Max Baucus sold this plan on the premise that it only costs $829 billion and that it would not inflate the deficit. Others, such as Cato, have pegged the cost at $2 trillion, which would make it a huge deficit multiplier. Reid seems to admit exactly this in his statement here.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Guys calm down. Kathleen Sebelius is on top of tort reform. He said so in his speech. He has her working overtime on it. I’m sure her plan will be released any day now.
/s
Joe Caps on October 15, 2009 at 10:15 AM
He = Obama
Joe Caps on October 15, 2009 at 10:16 AM
Their real problem with TORT reform is that it doesn’t cost anything. So they can’t charge more taxes or fees to make this change and save money. The only ‘changes’ they are interested in are changes that will cost taxpayer money.
ThackerAgency on October 15, 2009 at 10:16 AM
What college degree does Harry Scary have? Thought so.
Caper29 on October 15, 2009 at 10:16 AM
Gotta line up that lobbying gig with the ABA when he loses his seat in the next election….
Health “Reform” ftw!
dean_acheson on October 15, 2009 at 10:16 AM
“Oops, my bad.” – Sen. Harry Reid.
uknowmorethanme on October 15, 2009 at 10:17 AM
Harry Reid- You are dismissed. Go back to Searchlight, Vegas, K Street or wherever. Just go away you miserable lying bastard.
highhopes on October 15, 2009 at 10:17 AM
And what government jobs does tort reform create? Zero. That does not expand union rolls.
WashJeff on October 15, 2009 at 10:18 AM
What is the definition of gaffe, again? Accidentally telling the truth?
Vashta.Nerada on October 15, 2009 at 10:18 AM
nothing like having aother RPG to stash in the cache of gaffes and F8ck ups to use on his reelection campaign. hi is so out in 2010
hawkman on October 15, 2009 at 10:18 AM
A Billion here, A Billion there and pretty soon you’re talking about Real money.
Colbyjack on October 15, 2009 at 10:19 AM
Some Congressman should write a bill that would require every member of Congress to take a college prep level math course and pass a test before they are allowed to take their seat.
I know it would never pass but it would be fun to watch the vote.
Joe Caps on October 15, 2009 at 10:19 AM
You are wrong my friend. Harry Reid and his entire corrupt party get millions from trial lawyers. Tort reform would cost them an awful lot.
highhopes on October 15, 2009 at 10:19 AM
why save money when you can waste it?
i tend to throw my extra twenties out the window on the freeway.
blatantblue on October 15, 2009 at 10:19 AM
Dems will support tort reform when pigs fly.
OT: Beck is sounding like he’s got the goods on Anita Dunn, and that she’ll likely be out of the WH soon. He’s setting her up now with his new red phone, the WH hotline. Oooooie!
petefrt on October 15, 2009 at 10:19 AM
But Harry, think about what you could do with $54 billion. You could buy every American a year supply of soap and fragrances so they wouldn’t irritate your nostrils when you come in contact with them.
Joe Caps on October 15, 2009 at 10:20 AM
53 billion – eh, that’s nothing.
Just for the sake of scale, the Pennsylvania government has been arguing tooth and nail for 100 days over a 1 billion discrepancy in an overall state budget of 28 billion. PA is pretty big, and its entire budget is barely over half of the 53 billion Reid is talking about.
These people have lost all concept of the amount of money they are discussing. I’d call them children, but I think most children would get it better than they do.
forest on October 15, 2009 at 10:21 AM
Yesterday on Ed Schultz’s radio show he was talking about how if Harry Reid didn’t start listening to the leftist base and do what they wanted on health care, that they would work against him, and he wouldn’t get re-elected in 2010. I laughed.
Like we need their help in the matter. :-)
Abby Adams on October 15, 2009 at 10:21 AM
Lemme get this straight: If $54 billion saved is such a small percentage we shouldn’t bother making the saving, right? We should just ignore it, eh?
So, if Harry Reid were to lose his Senate seat by 0.5% of the total vote he’d also gracefully accept defeat without demanding a recount?
Liam on October 15, 2009 at 10:22 AM
Yup folks – this is the attitude of the government that is supposedly going to create what has never been created: efficiency and quality and reduction in waste over and above what private industry can.
The profit motive is maligned by liberals as greed but what they don’t see is that it eliminates waste and allows more money to be spent being more productive. An insurance company that only makes 3.3% profit is going to bend over backwards to save .5% of it’s operating costs but the government thinks it’s not even worth it because it’s not their own money they are wasting.
gwelf on October 15, 2009 at 10:23 AM
Also, don’t ask why I was listening to Fat Eddie’s show.
Abby Adams on October 15, 2009 at 10:23 AM
Oh that would be epic. Any clues as to what he is talking about?
Joe Caps on October 15, 2009 at 10:23 AM
I know that’s why, and it’s shameful. But I wish Congress would come up with a solution one day that didn’t comprise ‘we’re going to spend massive amounts of other people’s money and hope that fixes it’.
If there is a solution that doesn’t involve spending taxpayer money, congress isn’t interested in it. They see their only role as spending everyone else’s money.
ThackerAgency on October 15, 2009 at 10:23 AM
Didn’t trial lawyers give some $178 million to Democrats during the last election?
Yes Mr. Reid, we can all do the math.
uknowmorethanme on October 15, 2009 at 10:24 AM
As a percentage of $2T, $54B is a drop in the conceptual bucket. That’s why we need to vote everyone out, every election.
Medicaid/care has doubled in cost every decade since inception. That ugly fact must inform any talk of Uncle Same running the whole healthcare show.
Please dear Lord save us from this!
Akzed on October 15, 2009 at 10:24 AM
Wasn’t this the administration that said when the WH was saving like somewhere between 100 million that that is a lot of money where Gibbsy comes from?
deidre on October 15, 2009 at 10:24 AM
Remember when Obama had his cabinet members cut 100 million and when we said that wasn’t a lot of money, Obama said only in Washington 100 mill wasn’t a lot of money. He was so fiscally responsible. Well incase I’m mistaken 54 billion is a heck of a lot more than 100 million. Do the math Harry.
sammypants on October 15, 2009 at 10:25 AM
$540 billion defecit reduction over 10 years by doing nothing? Bad idea obviously.
uknowmorethanme on October 15, 2009 at 10:25 AM
Only in Washington is $54 billion not a lot of money. I can’t wait til this idiot is run out of town next November.
Doughboy on October 15, 2009 at 10:26 AM
How many GM cars would that buy? One for every American?
ThackerAgency on October 15, 2009 at 10:26 AM
This man astounds me w/his arrogance,He must be assuming that acorn and rahmbo will take care of him in 2010.
ohiobabe on October 15, 2009 at 10:27 AM
nah, I did the math, I think it’s like 150 bucks per person.
ThackerAgency on October 15, 2009 at 10:27 AM
About 7 total after you factor in maintenence and gas.
uknowmorethanme on October 15, 2009 at 10:27 AM
But, But, but…… it’s like you’re implying that they want to screw the taxpayers and destroy the economy………
It’s like the question: What would they be doing different if that WERE they’re intention?
Juno77 on October 15, 2009 at 10:28 AM
deidre on October 15, 2009 at 10:24 AM
sammypants on October 15, 2009 at 10:25 AM
And didn’t he say like a week later when talking about something else that was around that figure that it was not a lot of money?
Joe Caps on October 15, 2009 at 10:28 AM
There is a story on Dunn in today’s WaPo. Apparently she only signed on through the end of this year to train the kiddies in the WH communications shop and plans to return to her lucrative PR firm. Very interesting story. She’s a hired gun and not an Obamaite.
rockmom on October 15, 2009 at 10:30 AM
Harry Reid–getting lost in the blizzard of lies…
Congress–doing it’s part to promote global warming through the heated rehtoric of lies…
lovingmyUSA on October 15, 2009 at 10:30 AM
Not yet. He said he had one more confirmation to make, and hoped to break it before his morning show was over. If not, he’ll lead with it tonight on TV.
Yum!
petefrt on October 15, 2009 at 10:30 AM
**sigh**
I remember in 1976 watching Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford debating the out-of-control $47 billion federal budget deficit. Now $54 billion in savings is chump change.
How did we get here????
rockmom on October 15, 2009 at 10:31 AM
If the polling gets so bad against Harry Reid in Nevada that he loses all hope of reelection, he might actually start spitting out some more nuggets of truth. It could be pretty entertaining.
rasta16ry on October 15, 2009 at 10:33 AM
Beck’s implying the WaPo story is a cover.
petefrt on October 15, 2009 at 10:33 AM
Ed, Harry Reid’s silliness aside, 0.5% is still 0.5%. It’s a very small percentage. Saving each person 0.5% of their health care costs is not very significant.
I am very much for tort reform, but after seeing these numbers I can’t really claim that it would amount to a significant savings for the country.
How did you get this? I assume that’s not 0.5% of each family’s health care costs. That would come out to $20K per year per family.
tneloms on October 15, 2009 at 10:34 AM
54 billion for the border patrol is a helluva lot of money, for trial lawyers sucking American’s blood, its just a small percentage.
Speakup on October 15, 2009 at 10:34 AM
Caps on verdicts is the wrong type of tort reform – it is a liberal concept: government regulation of the justice system by arbitrary line-drawing – another “zero tolerance” scheme, in a sense. They are saying jurors are too stupid to be trusted with adjudication.
Real tort reform would involve making the system more accountable (through attorneys’ fee reform, and a couple other twinks). Who knows how much that could save, but it would affect more than just the health-care industry.
ManUFan on October 15, 2009 at 10:35 AM
Careful, Ed. The CBO take-away was that defensive medicine costs were a drop in the bucket, and sensibly asserted that profit motive and patient benefit were culprits, not just litigation fear.
SarahW on October 15, 2009 at 10:37 AM
Where did the ‘$2 trillion’ figure come from?
Juno77 on October 15, 2009 at 10:37 AM
Where does the 0.5% come from? I can’t do the math.
Wade on October 15, 2009 at 10:37 AM
Probably.
sammypants on October 15, 2009 at 10:38 AM
Agree verdict caps only harm those most injured, and protect negligence.
SarahW on October 15, 2009 at 10:38 AM
What a laugh?
Beckel on Fox: “They save us from a depression, how much more can you ask?”
Rovin on October 15, 2009 at 10:39 AM
He did way more than imply. He pretty much said it.
sammypants on October 15, 2009 at 10:39 AM
With torte reform and fraud, waste, and abuse in medicare I think there is more than 54 billion dollars in savings but they wont even look at these cost savings unless a health insurance reform bill is passed. They probably wont even do it then. This whole fiasco is a joke. To bad it’s so very real.
Brat4life on October 15, 2009 at 10:40 AM
How about just saving the $2 trillion, Harry?
Liam on October 15, 2009 at 10:42 AM
I’d love for that to be Obama’s campaign slogan in 2012.
Doughboy on October 15, 2009 at 10:44 AM
He says next week will be spent on Obama’s designs on free speech. Should be big.
petefrt on October 15, 2009 at 10:44 AM
Healthcare shmelthcare…post the Meghan McCain tank top photo as the top story already
CMonster on October 15, 2009 at 10:49 AM
Dingy harry is a POS.
OmahaConservative on October 15, 2009 at 10:50 AM
@ed
Was he referring to the total amount of money spent on healthcare/year? And not the bills?
I can’t stand the guy, but that’s what he appears to be talking about.
p0s3r on October 15, 2009 at 10:50 AM
Here’s some math to fathom Harry: Republican candidate for Senator gets more votes than you=you lose. :)
NathanG on October 15, 2009 at 10:54 AM
I bet this is really going to help his chances at re election next year/SARC.
Dr Evil on October 15, 2009 at 10:55 AM
In a congress overflowing with fools and liars, Harry Reid wears the crown as King of the Fools.
And so as not to be confused Harry, let me point out that’s not a compliment.
Nevada, you know what you must do. He needs to be Daschled.
fogw on October 15, 2009 at 10:56 AM
Never thought I would ever hold anyone lower in contempt than Dasch-hole…
OmahaConservative on October 15, 2009 at 10:57 AM
You too?
There such silly amounts to carry in your wallet.
VibrioCocci on October 15, 2009 at 10:59 AM
There = They’re
VibrioCocci on October 15, 2009 at 11:00 AM
Trial lawyers lobby is broke. They’re losing members and can’t raise money. Reid is covering their a**es. I believe the article was in the WSJ.
elclynn on October 15, 2009 at 11:02 AM
He gets the 2 trillion number from the total amount spent on health care each year.
It’s a rounding error to him because the actual number most people use for health care costs in America this year is 2.4T
But I suppose 400B isn’t that much to Harry Reid either (especially if it isn’t his money). That’s how much they are going to cut from Medicare.
The only thing you have to do to derail this thing is repeat this mantra over and over and over again. . .
500 B in cuts to Medicare.
500B in cuts to Medicare
500B in cuts to Medicare
500B in cuts to Medicare
ThackerAgency on October 15, 2009 at 11:03 AM
Much of the overall savings comes from the reduced cost of “defensive medicine” (i.e., tests not performed — tests that the standard of practice for doctors in the community still say should be performed). So, doctors will be more likely to deviate from standard medical practice and not order a test for you even though your symptoms should indicate to a reasonable doctor acting in accordance with the standard of practice that the test should be performed. This will work out great so long as you are one of those lucky individuals that would have come back with a negative result on the test. However, for those of you whose life would have been saved by the test (that standard medical practice says should have been performed), well, you are just going to have to die, and as a parting gift the damages for you an your survivors will be arbitrarily capped by some elitist in Washington who thinks he knows how much your and your window’s suffering is worth. GREAT!
tommylotto on October 15, 2009 at 11:04 AM
Correction; article in newmax.com. Law lobby loses 6.2 million in debt.
elclynn on October 15, 2009 at 11:05 AM
Watching that clip makes me want to take a baseball bat to a pumpkin…
Seven Percent Solution on October 15, 2009 at 11:07 AM
My primary concern with pursuing Tort Reform is the uncertainty with the protections that a patient will be provided.
I wholeheartedly agree that we need to have protections for doctors but I do not see any discussion regarding protections for the patient.
What does a patient get to fall back on should a doctor engage in negligence? Simply criminal prosecution and the patient is scarred for life? No restitution on that end, especially that now the patient will suffer most likely for life?
That is my issue with this.
Feel free to comment.
ckoeber on October 15, 2009 at 11:11 AM
It’s finally come to this!
Hot Lips Harry Reid has turned Everett Dirksen’s famous quip almost literally on its head. Dirksen is reputed to have said, “A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you’re talking real money.” Reid says, “$54 billion here, $54 billion there, what the hell? It’s not like it amounts to anything!”
That quote is attributed to Dirksen, but according to the Dirksen Center, it cannot be verified. Sort of like all those racist comments attributed to Rush that can’t be sourced, either.
CO2MAKER on October 15, 2009 at 11:11 AM
Oh, okay I thought he was exhibiting a rare fit of honesty and telling everyone the Real cost estimates for Obamacare.
No doubt if that bureaucratic and budgetary monstrosity passes, it’ll be much, much worse than anybody can imagine.
Juno77 on October 15, 2009 at 11:12 AM
Listening to Daschle whine endlessly about those mean conservatives trying to pass the balanced budget amendment, (that was supposed to take school lunches out of the kids mouths), was such a classic. What’s funny with Harry and his hemroids is they have complete control of the political process, and yet don’t seem to have the “nads” to pass their agenda. Can we draft ManlyRash next year for a return to HA? This fun, (watching these socialist-spending maniacs exit their jobs), needs to be shared.
Rovin on October 15, 2009 at 11:14 AM
Tort reform does not take away the patient’s right to sue for malpractice.
ICBM on October 15, 2009 at 11:23 AM
From the top secret “What This is Really Gonna Cost” record books.
forest on October 15, 2009 at 11:23 AM
I think Dirty Harry has been around Joe Gaffe Biden a bit too much.
katablog.com on October 15, 2009 at 11:23 AM
ckoeber on October 15, 2009
The most often advocated tort reform is simply a limit on unquantifiable “pain and suffering” damages. That leaves any damages that can be quantified unlimited, meaning awards for malpractice even under tort reform can be in the tens of millions of dollars (as happens often in California, where there is a limit on “pain and suffering” damages, but not any other form of damages.
Mervis Winter on October 15, 2009 at 11:23 AM
Well if we calculate how many people really can’t afford health insurance.
If we assume healthcare costs $5,000 per person per year, which is a pretty high number.
54,000,000,000 would cover over 10,000,000 people for a year.
So more than actually are sans health insurance.
jhffmn on October 15, 2009 at 11:29 AM
This is part of the Dems’ America-hating strategy. They have, since the beginning of this insane debate, tried to portray private expenditures for health care as contributing to the deficit. It has been disingenuous from the start, and the media and many others have let them get away with it. They have constantly conflated private and public dollars, while they have pushed to make public all expenses, which is the real idiocy of the whole venture.
It has become the rule – with no exceptions that I’ve seen – that the left deliberately lies about private spending and acts as if all spending that goes on in the US is, somehow, public spending that “contributes to the deficit”.
Of course, the Dems have voters with an average IQ around 84, so they don’t have to worry about any of this. And The Precedent is incapable of any serious thinking, himself, so he doesn’t know what the hell he’s talking about.
When idiocy and stupidity like this is common fare from those running the federal government … the end is not far off. No nation can withstand such stupidity. It’s a total run on the intellectual bank of our politics.
progressoverpeace on October 15, 2009 at 11:34 AM
TORT reform needs to be carefully thought out, not something to ‘push through’ Congress like lawmakers always seem to want to do with everything these days. I also hate when they ‘hammer out’ a deal. We the People aren’t served when they do things that way.
But there needs to be a cap, and my fave argument is the person who some years ago sued a tobacco company to win a billion-dollar award. True, that figure was slashed on appeal but the notion of the initial judgment is insane, in my view. That’s the kind of thing reformers are trying to change.
Remember, too, the lawyers get a third or more of any awards paid. Had that billion dollar award been upheld on appeal, the lawyers would have raked in $300 million. But, talk to Dems and other libs, they’ll say no one ‘needs’ (and therefore no right) to have $300 million.
Limit both government and trial lawyers, and costs will come down to some degree. And I believe it can be done without risking the best for a person who’s been harmed by malpractice.
Liam on October 15, 2009 at 11:35 AM
tommylotto on October 15, 2009 at 11:04 AM
Oh by all means – medicine means every person undergoing every test and repeatedly from here to eternity. Anything else just wouldn’t be prudent. Have you been in for your daily colonoscopy yet? No? Better hurry because you NEVER know what it might turn up.
CK MacLeod on October 15, 2009 at 11:46 AM
As a health care worker in a mid-sized community medical center, .5% savings would help to buy all new equipment for a neonatal intensive care unit, or a new MRI, or pay 10% of the salary for all employees for one month. It may be chump change for Harry, but for those of us at the point of the spear in health care it would mean a lot.
Dog bites on October 15, 2009 at 11:58 AM
Harry likey trial lawyer money.
TheUnrepentantGeek on October 15, 2009 at 12:01 PM
That there makes me sick.
loudmouth883 on October 15, 2009 at 12:07 PM
Can we start a Reideurism of the day?
tanvec on October 15, 2009 at 12:27 PM
Just think of the jobs that could be created with a 54 billion tax cut.
dogsoldier on October 15, 2009 at 12:34 PM
Tort reform isn’t malpractice. It only applies when the doctor follows the standards and practices. If a doctor is drunk or incompetent, malpractice still applies.
So, if a doctor follows the normal procedure for a heart transplant and the patient still dies; he shouldn’t be sued for a billion dollars. If he screwed up during the operation, then of course he should be.
lorien1973 on October 15, 2009 at 12:39 PM
You must not understand much about medical malpractice. To be found negligent, a doctor must fall below the reasonable standard of practice for other doctors in his community. That just means he must follow sound medical practice. He does not need to give the best care possible, just standard care. Do you know what that means? Tort reform wants to subsidize substandard care.
Talk about core principals! Since when is it a core conservative principal to take away an individual’s right to standard medical care, and then when the care falls below that standard to take away that individual’s right to just compensation by the common law jury system of our forefathers, all for the collective good of the Borg. I will tell you what — Tort reform is socialist. The only reason that the GOP is interested in it is to benefit insurance companies and to defund the left’s supporters in the trial lawyers. Tort reform has nothing, nothing to do with core conservative principals.
The GOP had complete control over both houses and the Presidency for years. They talked about tort reform, but the only legislation that they produced was CAFA throwing national class actions into federal court. Why no damage caps? Because it is bad policy. It does nothing to limit frivolous lawsuits and only takes from those actually grievously injured and gives to the insurance companies to make up for their loses on Wall Street.
tommylotto on October 15, 2009 at 12:39 PM
moron
PatriotRider on October 15, 2009 at 12:46 PM
Something is wrong. Since when does Reid, or any far left liberal give a rats behind about saving other peoples money?
capejasmine on October 15, 2009 at 1:13 PM
When is somebody in the RNC going to challenge the constitutionality of any of these health “bills”, or specifically the federal mandate for buying coverage?
ultracon on October 15, 2009 at 1:17 PM
What I find most disgusting about his statement is this: $54 billion isn’t a lot of money, but $81 billion is? Remember, Democrats were CROWING over the fact that the CBO initial, early analysis said that the plan would save $81 billion. So…Democrats find savings that support their cause, and its a lot of money. Republicans who want tort reform find out that it saves almost as much money (really MORE, when you look at it correctly, as was stated above) and its suddenly NOT a lot overall? My my my…can’t you just SMELL the bull manure rolling from Reid on this one??
Highlar on October 15, 2009 at 2:33 PM
Hey what’s 54 billion … Where can I get mine.
Harry Reid personifies loser.
tarpon on October 15, 2009 at 2:39 PM
$54Bil is a lot of money, Senator. Even in Vegas.
How is Vegas, Sir? Oh, you aren’t liked there anymore?
Don’t you have an election next year?
You poor man.
Black Adam on October 15, 2009 at 2:44 PM
Whoever opposes Dirty Harry should run a video clip each day highlighting a different one of Reid’s lies, gaffes, or stupid remarks. This one could be day number 1.
LASue on October 15, 2009 at 2:45 PM
Any requirement less than proving actual negligence, means that if you want to steal money from a doctor, all you have to do is find another doctor who disagrees with the treatment that you received.
Slowburn on October 15, 2009 at 3:12 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »