Actual 10-year cost of Pelosi Plan: $1.8 trillion

posted at 1:25 pm on November 5, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

Nancy Pelosi tried selling the notion that her version of ObamaCare would only cost $900 billion in the first ten years, later bumped to over $1 trillion when looking at gross costs.  Harry Reid’s Senate version promises to come in at around the same level.  However, both versions rely on three years of delay in implementing their spending plans, which allows for accrual of revenues from new taxes as well as a false sense of the real ten-year costs in the bills.  The New York Post reads the CBO report and discovers that the actual ten-year cost is twice what Pelosi claimed:

Don’t buy the claim that the Sen ate health-care bill is substantially more moderate than the House measure. While Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s legislation is even more onerous than the package created by Sen. Max Baucus and now championed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the larger story is how similar the two Democratic bills are.

First, we need to get past the misleading accounting games. Each bill is routinely “scored” for its 10-year costs from 2010-19. Yet this includes several years when the spending wouldn’t yet have kicked in. According to the Congressional Budget Office, fully 99.9 percent of the Pelosi bill’s costs would hit from 2013 onward. Similarly, 98.3 percent of Reid’s spending would come after 2014.

If you start the tally when the bills’ spending would actually start (in 2013 for the House bill and 2014 for the Senate bill), then the bills’ real 10-year costs become clear — and are remarkably similar.

The CBO reports that, in their true first 10 years, the House bill would cost $1.8 trillion, and the Senate bill would cost $1.7 trillion. Pelosi would raise Americans’ taxes by $1.1 trillion over that period, while Reid would hike them by $1 trillion.

And the House bill would siphon about $800 billion from Medicare to spend it elsewhere, while the Senate bill would suck out about $900 billion.

What does that do to the deficit?  According to the CBO, the first ten years of the Pelosi plan would add $650 billion to the deficit, while the Reid plan in the Senate would hike it by $740 billion.  And that assumes that one can count the money coming from Medicare cuts as true deficit reduction, which is arguable, since the Medicare system is already deeply in the red.

In other words, both Democrats have relied on accounting gimmicks to lie about the true costs of the bills.  This may not come as much of a shock to Hot Air readers, but the scope of the lie is simply breathtaking.  If this bill was truly cost-beneficial to the country, its advocates would not be spending this much effort to cover up its costs.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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

$1.8 Trillion over 10 years is $180 Billion per year, and according to the bill’s proponents, this is supposed to cover 36 million uninsured people. That comes out to an average of $5,000 per year per person.

Most private insurance companies offer “family” coverage, which cover the premium payer’s spouse and children for MUCH less than $20,000 per year. Pelosi’s plan is basically a “Cadillac” plan on the taxpayers’ backs, while throwing the 85% of the population satisfied with their health insurance into rationed care. It would be far cheaper to give every person below the poverty line a $2,000/year voucher to buy health insurance, and let them buy it or not according to their own choice.

Steve Z on November 5, 2009 at 5:25 PM

It would be far cheaper to give every person below the poverty line a $2,000/year voucher to buy health insurance, and let them buy it or not according to their own choice.

spend it on crack cocaine and lotto tickets

AMERICAN VETERAN on November 5, 2009 at 7:52 PM

Pelosi,,what a tool!

AMERICAN VETERAN on November 5, 2009 at 7:53 PM

You have to focus on the big picture like a libtard would.. Even Pelosi has stated that they would loose some seats because of this bill. Why is she willing to sacrifice the blue dogs? While we are busy discussing costs, Pelosi and Reid behind closed doors are promising all the ‘sacrifices’ a nice cushy job in one of the new created health care bureaucracys. ‘We will give you a nice cushy job with no stress and all the benifits if you just fall on the sword’. The fix is in folks, all this drama is for nothing. They will pass this. They do not care about costs or how well this works, it is about power over you and everything you do..

TEXASLEGAL on November 5, 2009 at 9:41 PM

Comment pages: 1 2