Skip to main content

Conn Carroll Can't Count

Conn Carroll has an amazingly duplicitous post over at the Washington Examiner, titled "Yes, Obamacare's Costs Have Almost Doubled." Here he is:
New York Magazine's Jonathan Chait, The New Republic's Jonathan Cohn, and The Washington Post's Ezra Klein all wrote posts have all written posts denying that Obamacare's costs have doubled since it became law. Below are the gross cost tables from both: 1) the March 18, 2010 CBO Obamacare cost estimate; and 2) the March 2012 Obamacare cost estimate.
$1.76 trillion is not double $940 billion, but it's close. Throw in one more year of full implementation ($265 billion in 2022) and the real ten year gross cost of Obamacare is north of $2 trillion.
Questions about the cost of government programs often involve time periods. Social Security, for example, has one cost over a single year and a different cost over five years, or 20 years. Looking at different numbers in this way allows us to think about how the costs are changing, and what we might do about it. If the cost went up, say, we could ask: is the cost structure fundamentally altering, or are more people entering the program? These are good things to think about.

However, when thinking in this way, it is important to be clear about when the program starts. This is the first boneheaded screwup Coll makes. Suppose I pass a law to start building a new jet fighter in 2014, and continue production for the next 20 years. Obviously, if I compare the window of 2010-2019 to the window of 2012-2021, the second will have a larger headline cost because it includes two more years of production. Obamacare is like this—most of the big programs start in 2014, as you see in the chart above when the spending increases by a factor of 5-10. Claiming this represents an increase in the cost of Obamacare is like saying a new aircraft carrier is cheap because its cost in 1960 was zero.

It gets worse, though. He hasn't even read his table. He quotes $1.76 trillion as the "gross cost," or the total spending ignoring revenues in the program, but his chart shows net costs of $1.25 trillion. Did he even glance at these tables before putting them up? He obviously didn't read the report, because $1.76 trillion is not in it anywhere. [UPDATE: A reader points out that I am mistaken here. That figure is in the table. Nevertheless, the remaining points stand.]

But that, unbelievably, isn't even the stupidest mistake Coll makes. (You might have spotted it already.) His tables don't have the same number of years. 2010-2019 is 10 years, which one can verify by counting if subtraction is too hard, and 2012-2022 is 11 years.

This is either transparent hack work, or straight-up idiotic. I'm not sure which is worse.

UPDATE: Ezra Klein adds graphs of the relevant years.


Popular posts from this blog

Why Did Reality Winner Leak to the Intercept?

So Reality Winner, former NSA contractor, is in federal prison for leaking classified information — for five years and three months, the longest sentence of any whistleblower in history. She gave documents on how Russia had attempted to hack vendors of election machinery and software to The Intercept , which completely bungled basic security procedures (according to a recent New York Times piece from Ben Smith, the main fault lay with Matthew Cole and Richard Esposito ), leading to her capture within hours. Winner recently contracted COVID-19 in prison, and is reportedly suffering some lingering aftereffects. Glenn Greenwald has been furiously denying that he had anything at all to do with the Winner clusterfuck, and I recently got in an argument with him about it on Twitter. I read a New York story about Winner, which clearly implies that she was listening to the Intercepted podcast of March 22, 2017 , where Greenwald and Jeremy Scahill expressed skepticism about Russia actually b

Varanus albigularis albigularis

That is the Latin name for the white-throated monitor lizard , a large reptile native to southern Africa that can grow up to two meters long (see pictures of one at the Oakland Zoo here ). In Setswana, it's called a "gopane." I saw one of these in my village yesterday on the way back from my run. Some kids from school found it in the riverbed and tortured it to death, stabbing out its eyes, cutting off its tail, and gutting it which finally killed it. It seemed to be a female as there were a bunch of round white things I can only imagine were eggs amongst the guts. I only arrived after it was already dead, but they described what had happened with much hilarity and re-enactment. When I asked why they killed it, they said it was because it would eat their chickens and eggs, which is probably true, and because it sucks blood from people, which is completely ridiculous. It might bite a person, but not unless threatened. It seems roughly the same as killing wolves tha

Caffeine Is Not a Bioweapon

I got into a discussion with Yves Smith about caffeine here , and somehow my comment got eaten, so I'd like to finish it up here. She said about this Raw Story piece about a girl who allegedly died from drinking two Monster drinks in two days, "The FDA lapse here is terrible. Caffeine is extremely toxic. We just happen to get highly diluted doses in coffee and tea." I commented: Yves, your implication about caffeine is incorrect on several levels. Most Monster drinks have about 10 mg of caffeine per fluid ounce, which is much less than even drip coffee (18 mg/oz) and WAY less than espresso (51 mg/oz). ( Source ) The whole idea of dilution is misguided in any case. The relevant measurement for caffeine intoxication (and most poisoning generally) is the total amount taken, not the concentration. Concentration is something to worry about, as it can make a lethal dose easier to take on, but the main concern there is pure caffeine pills, not energy drinks which are mostl