Yes and they even tell you that in their own way. Read that last sentence and the footnote.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/113xx/doc11307/Reid_Letter_HR3590.pdf

There is some question as to how section 3112 of H.R. 3590, which changes funding for the Medicare Improvement Fund (MIF), would be implemented. That section would
strike the amount that, until recently, was the funding provided for the MIF for 2014 and
replace it with zero, thereby yielding savings that would offset part of the cost of
H.R. 3590. However, the underlying provision that section 3112 would amend was
changed by the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010 (Public Law 111-118),
so the amount of current-law funding for 2014 has changed (from about $22.3 billion to
$20.7 billion). This estimate incorporates the assumption that enacting H.R. 3590 would
reduce the funding for the MIF for 2014 to zero—the clear intent of section 3112—thus
yielding savings of $20.7 billion. An alternative interpretation would be that enacting
section 3112 would have no effect because it now contains an incorrect reference to
current law. However, experts in appropriations law and statutory construction have
advised CBO that, regardless of the technical error in describing current-law funding, the
intention to set the funding at zero in 2014 is clear, and the provision would probably be
interpreted and implemented accordingly.

7 Statutory interpretation usually begins and ends with the plain meaning of legislative language. In rare cases where a literal interpretation would be demonstrably at odds with Congressional intent, an interpretation that gives full effect to Congressional intent is preferred over a literal interpretation. See United States v. Ron Pair Enters., Inc., 489 U.S. 235, 242 (1989). Further, a literal interpretation would render section 3112 a nullity—a result to be avoided under principles of statutory interpretation.

In other words, we score this according to the intent of Congress not a literal interpretation of the law the way its written.

Plus this isn’t the true cost.

CBO has not completed an estimate of all of the discretionary costs that would be
associated with H.R. 3590. (Those costs would depend on future appropriations and are
not included in the tables accompanying this letter.) As indicated in CBO’s earlier
estimate, such costs would probably include an estimated $5 billion to $10 billion over
10 years for administrative costs of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and at least a
similar amount for expenses of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
CBO has also identified at least $50 billion in specified and estimated authorizations of
future discretionary spending for a number of grant programs and other provisions of the
legislation; whether some or all of those costs would be incurred would depend on future
appropriation legislation.

The bill is loaded with discretionary costs that will have to be filled in by appropriations later. While the CBO “estimates” that those costs could be as high as $50 billion they admit they really don’t know what the costs are.

“CBO has not yet completed estimates of the amounts of such authorizations, and, in some cases, the legislation does not offer sufficient guidance to determine estimates of what the ‘necessary’ amounts might be,” the memo said.

In reality, no one knows what the bill will cost. This is all political theater.

I don’t understand how they’re talking about cutting medicare when the
programs broke and is going to need more money dumped into it.