General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsJake Tapper/factcheck.org on claims about the Koch Bros funded study on health care costs
Accuracy matters - especially when one remembers how hard Obama got hammered for "You can keep your doctor."
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
George II
(67,782 posts)...."even the Koch Brothers' Study says Medicare for All would save money"
That's simply not true.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)...."even the Koch Brothers' Study says Medicare for All would save money"
That's simply not true.
In fact, I've seen it happen multiple times... and it's coming from people who I---otherwise---consider to be reasonably intelligent individuals. So, because of that, I know they're not being deceived... therefore it's clear to me that they're simply (and willfully) being mendacious.
mcar
(42,334 posts)To us Democrats, at least!
PaulX2
(2,032 posts)And 30 million still are not insured.
Medicare for all makes sense.
Pure for profit care is idiotic and deadly.
Ever watch Sikko?
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)
Squinch
(50,950 posts)using those facts as rebuttals to the comments being made to you suggest that you don't understand that those problems do not constitute a solution.
The rest of us are talking about how to get to a realistic solution. BS blowing smoke about what a real solution will cost doesn't help.
mcar
(42,334 posts)Facts matter.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)From factcheck.org
“Proponents are perfectly free to argue for those provider cuts and to say that THEY believe M4A will therefore lower national health spending, — and also to cite whatever data they want in support of their arguments, from any study they find credible,” Blahous told us. “What they shouldn’t say is that I also reached that conclusion, because that’s incorrect. That finding should not be attributed to me or to my study.”
https://www.factcheck.org/2018/08/the-cost-of-medicare-for-all/
Squinch
(50,950 posts)If we make healthcare public, however we do it, whether it be MFA or something else, we will logically see increases in costs because more people will have access to healthcare. That is the point of it. So to blow smoke up the ass of America and say costs will be slashed sets any program up for ridicule. It guarantees an erosion of support for the program.
I don't MIND paying more for universal healthcare. I think most Democrats agree with me. (We are not talking here about universal access, but real universal healthcare.) I think there are myriad ways to pay for it that would better reflect the values of Americans than the current distribution of taxes and benefits.
So why do BS and OC feel like they have to lie? Why not tell the truth and come up with a real, workable plan with real, workable costs and real, workable ways to pay for it.
The way BS is going about it guarantees its failure. As usual.
GeorgeGist
(25,321 posts)Squinch
(50,950 posts)
heaven05
(18,124 posts)astute and concise analysis of that response...
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)
Cha
(297,257 posts)a twist, Gist?
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Always remember, language is your friend, not an enemy; don't be afraid to use it beyond the breadth of a t-shirt slogan.
Bernardo de La Paz
(49,002 posts)
brer cat
(24,566 posts)raging moderate
(4,305 posts)Their hearts are in the right place, but they jump to conclusions. Enthusiasm tends to take over too soon among them. It's always sort of like that musical swell in Tchaikovsky's "Romeo and Juliet."
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)https://www.factcheck.org/2018/08/the-cost-of-medicare-for-all/
PaulX2
(2,032 posts)How much does it cost to watch your neighbor die because insulin costs $1500 a month?
Our profit before people system is leeching us.
Tapper has Healthcare and says screw you to the poorest 30 million americans who have none.
Eat me Tapper
Squinch
(50,950 posts)when a proponent lies about how to get there, it undermines the whole effort to get it and makes the general public feel it is not possible to get there.
PaulX2
(2,032 posts)The fact checkers can't count.
Add the Koch Numbers to what they left out.
Medicare for all BY FAR CHEAPER.
F A C T.
F A C T.
Healthcare is a right.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)PaulX2
(2,032 posts)Experts said.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Last edited Mon Aug 20, 2018, 10:03 AM - Edit history (1)
Here?
“Proponents are perfectly free to argue for those provider cuts and to say that THEY believe M4A will therefore lower national health spending, — and also to cite whatever data they want in support of their arguments, from any study they find credible,” Blahous told us. “What they shouldn’t say is that I also reached that conclusion, because that’s incorrect. That finding should not be attributed to me or to my study.”
https://www.factcheck.org/2018/08/the-cost-of-medicare-for-all/
George II
(67,782 posts)What was left out is the bad stuff. It is being selectively praised and presented as "see, even the conservative Koch brothers agree!"
lapucelle
(18,265 posts)lapucelle
(18,265 posts)Can you link to a data set in the BS bill (S1804) that was omitted in the Mercatus study?
https://www.mercatus.org/system/files/blahous-costs-medicare-mercatus-working-paper-v1_1.pdfhttps://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/1804/text#toc-id6a446c63a93e4b7bbbaffa1cb6e6e382
https://www.mercatus.org/system/files/blahous-costs-medicare-mercatus-working-paper-v1_1.pdf
Squinch
(50,950 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)
Squinch
(50,950 posts)If you really want universal healthcare, and you are not in this to simply be radical and claim others are not as pure as you, you need to work actual numbers. BS's promises of blue skies and unicorns will not get us to the goal.
It can easily be paid for, but the first step in doing that is admitting that it will have to be paid for. Denying that doesn't help.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)You seem to equate fact checking politicians with "being against healthcare as a right."
That's certainly not factually based. Sounds like someone being very reactionary and defensive of the idea of particular politicians being fact checked.
And certainly CNN doesn't - Tapper said at the end they are not commenting on the viability of MFA, just factchecking Sanders' and AOC's representation of the conclusions of the Koch Bros funded study.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)
George II
(67,782 posts)
lapucelle
(18,265 posts)and what are we supposed to add it to?
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Nothing you said refutes the analysis of the claims being made about the Koch Bros. study.
So you think that factcheck.org is saying "screw you!" to 30 million Americans as well?
And here I thought it was just Trump supporters that go ballistic upon hearing their favorite politican being fact checked.
PaulX2
(2,032 posts)They left stuff out.
Have you seen the interviews?
Experts pointing out death costs not counted.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)on the Koch funded study? Factcheck.org is pretty thorough.
PaulX2
(2,032 posts)They need fact checked.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Still not seeing how that fits into what Tapper and factcheck.org are saying.
PaulX2
(2,032 posts)Koch didn't count many factors.
Experts said.
Death costs for one. There were many others. I can't remember the others.
Factcheck.org didn't mention this.
Not good.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)You're very unhappy someone fact checked two politicians. You are desperately equating that with "being against health care as a right."
Keep on attacking that strawman...
"It is likely that the actual cost of Medicare-for-all would be substantially greater than these estimates, which assume significant administrative and drug cost savings under the plan, and also assume that health care providers operating under Medicare-for-all will be reimbursed at rates more than 40 percent lower than those currently paid by private health insurance," Blahous wrote in the paper's abstract, according to factcheck.org."
Maybe you were too furious to watch the whole video to the end when Tapper said CNN was not looking to weigh in as to whether Medicare-for-all was a viable option to be implemented in the U.S., but noted that "it does seem pretty clear that the presentation being made by Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez about this study lacks a lot of context."
PaulX2
(2,032 posts)Remembered another one.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)From the abstract of the actual study:
"It is likely that the actual cost of Medicare-for-all would be substantially greater than these estimates, which assume significant administrative and drug cost savings under the plan, and also assume that health care providers operating under Medicare-for-all will be reimbursed at rates more than 40 percent lower than those currently paid by private health insurance."
PaulX2
(2,032 posts)What the study didn't count. Many more reasons it would save money overall.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Particularly one's memory when angry and lashing out, My Friend.
And accusing anyone who factchecks of being "against healthcare as a right" doesn't help one's credibility.
There is a certain amount of guesswork in estimating the cost of something as complicated as the health care system, and all of those estimates rely on a multitude of assumptions. We’re not suggesting the assumptions made in the Sanders bill are wrong, only that they aren’t Blahous’ assumptions.
“Proponents are perfectly free to argue for those provider cuts and to say that THEY believe M4A will therefore lower national health spending, — and also to cite whatever data they want in support of their arguments, from any study they find credible,” Blahous told us. “What they shouldn’t say is that I also reached that conclusion, because that’s incorrect. That finding should not be attributed to me or to my study.”
Blahous used the text of Sanders’ bill to guide assumptions. For example, he said, the bill says health care providers will be reimbursed for patients at Medicare payment rates. Blahous said Medicare payment rates are projected by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to be roughly 40 percent lower than those paid by private insurers, so he built those assumed savings into his estimate.
But in the report, Blahous cautions that the assumption is suspect.
Blahous, July 2018: It is not precisely predictable how hospitals, physicians, and other healthcare providers would respond to a dramatic reduction in their reimbursements under M4A, well below their costs of care for all categories of patients combined. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Office of the Actuary has projected that even upholding current-law reimbursement rates for treating Medicare beneficiaries alone would cause nearly half of all hospitals to have negative total facility margins by 2040. The same study found that by 2019, over 80 percent of hospitals will lose money treating Medicare patients — a situation M4A would extend, to a first approximation, to all US patients. Perhaps some facilities and physicians would be able to generate heretofore unachieved cost savings that would enable their continued functioning without significant disruptions. However, at least some undoubtedly would not, thereby reducing the supply of healthcare services at the same time M4A sharply increases healthcare demand. It is impossible to say precisely how much the confluence of these factors would reduce individuals’ timely access to healthcare services, but some such access problems almost certainly must arise.
Anticipating these difficulties, some other studies have assumed that M4A payment rates must exceed current-law Medicare payment rates to avoid sending facilities into deficit on average or to avoid triggering unacceptable reductions in the provision and quality of healthcare services. These alternative payment rate assumptions substantially increase the total projected costs of M4A.
...................................................................................................
We take no position on “Medicare-for-all” and we can’t say if Blahous’ study is or is not influenced by donors to the Mercatus Center. But we can say that Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez are misrepresenting the study’s conclusions.
https://www.factcheck.org/2018/08/the-cost-of-medicare-for-all/
lapucelle
(18,265 posts)to be offset by "increased productivity of sick people"? Can you link to a cost/benefit ratio that supports your claim?
lapucelle
(18,265 posts)Can you direct me to the section of BS's bill that accounts for positive and/or negative externalities?
Are the initial externalities of the implementation of S1804 likely to be positive or negative? Will future positive externalities be offset by increased negative externalities or exceed them?
https://www.mercatus.org/system/files/blahous-costs-medicare-mercatus-working-paper-v1_1.pdf
https://www.mercatus.org/system/files/blahous-costs-medicare-mercatus-working-paper-v1_1.pdf
George II
(67,782 posts)Last edited Mon Aug 20, 2018, 10:26 AM - Edit history (1)
Are you folks telling us that people who have good healthcare are not going to die and people who don't will die?
Guess what - EVERYONE is going to die, and whether you die from medical complications from poor healthcare or natural causes, the "death cost" is going to be the same.
And whether one has good healthcare or not, each person only dies once.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)https://www.factcheck.org/2018/08/the-cost-of-medicare-for-all/
(That's what a citation looks like, btw.)
George II
(67,782 posts)lapucelle
(18,265 posts)Squinch
(50,950 posts)Gothmog
(145,288 posts)This is a very interesting and helpful video
Squinch
(50,950 posts)division among Democrats. Instead of calling us "left" and "centrist," we should be calling the division "purists" vs. "realists."
To begin with, EVERYONE AGREES HEALTHCARE IS A RIGHT.
The purists' acknowledged spokesperson is blowing smoke and obfuscating facts about the costs and what is needed for practical implementation of universal healthcare.
The realists are saying, "We need to do this. It is definitely possible to do this. But it doesn't help to toss around nonsense numbers. We need to look at actual facts if we are to do this right."
The "purists" then call us bastards and insist that we don't believe healthcare is a right.
Happy to stand with the realists who want affordable healthcare for all.
mythology
(9,527 posts)Being accurate matters.
JHan
(10,173 posts)Democrats lost Congress twice because of healthcare reform, and in those cases the reforms paid attention to detail.
In this case, however.....
But I guess my pointing this out makes me NeoLiberalShillCentristModerateCapitalistRepublicanLite or whatever.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)All I'm saying is that these purists are so unwilling to "settle for less and absolute perfection" ... and they're so unwilling to negotiate or compromise, that they end up with NO LOAF instead of half-a-loaf. Some of them seem to be PROUD of themselves for walking away with nothing.
I think there's no honor in starving (or causing others to starve too) simply to satisfy one's own vanity and bragging rights about their political and philosophical purity.
Thanks for your comments, Squinch! You're right on target as always!
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)I understand your description of the "purist" approach. My problem with the "realists" is that they are just as prone to over statement. I had to listen to the "realists" consistently refer to the ACA as "universal health care" when it was anything but. It wasn't health care, and it wasn't universal. When it was pointed out that the stimulus package was too small by half, the realists would never acknowledge it (even after a couple of years when it was proven as such). Furthermore, realists love to treat predictions as fact. "Nothing bigger would have gotten through congress". Well, first of all nothing bigger was even proposed. Larry Summers prevented any such plan or outline from even reaching the presidents desk, much less going over to congress and seeing if "it would pass". And finally, even what they proposed didn't "pass", ultimately congress makes changes to everything. So you explain what is needed, and then you negotiate for what they'll do. And please, when you're done, admit that it doesn't do everything that is needed instead of declaring it a BFD and claiming victory.
The purists are pissed because they are told "yes we can" and then listen to "well that's not what we meant". They could handle better "that's not right" instead of "oh, that's too far". So, let's not demand that the purists be factually perfect anymore than we demand that of the realists.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)Although you'll note that's not what I was discussing, I think they are trying to simplify a complicated argument.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)
SunSeeker
(51,559 posts)Lieberman said he would not vote for the ACA with a public option. The ACA finally passed in the Senate, by the bare minimum votes needed. Without Lieberman's vote, it would not have passed. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act
So tell me, what would YOU have done?
Would you do the same thing Ted Kennedy did (and later said he regretted) decades earlier and hold out for the perfect legislation, while 45,000 Americans died each for lack of any health coverage whatsoever? The ACA, as imperfect as it was, expanded Medicare and covered the poor who were dying for lack of healthcare.
Were the realists wrong in choosing to pass the ACA?
Why are you blaming Democrats for the lack of a public option, instead of Republicans, and independents like Lieberman, who actually blocked it?
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)if he had cut a deal with Nixon when he had the chance.
SunSeeker
(51,559 posts)Squinch
(50,950 posts)to cover the general public?
Was it the purists or the realists that got REAL insurance for 30 million people who couldn't afford it?
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)To play lawyer and weaken it through the courts.
Squinch
(50,950 posts)If everything BS wanted got in, Republicans would have been magically transformed to being decent people?
Kay.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)should try to advocate for more, because while the ACA(what's left of it) needs to remain in place, its a stop gap at best, not a permanent solution. We need to work on its replacement, or at least advocate for something better, so that a public option, Medicare buy in, or some other solution becomes politically tenable. This partisan, reactionary defensiveness is so tiresome.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)That is what policy experts feel is the least politically vulnerable to attack.
That is exactly what Hillary was proposing, and she was called a "shill for big pharma" and a "corporate puppet" by many who were and still are convinced that anything other than MFA in 8 years as Sanders proclaims can be done, is unacceptable.
SunSeeker
(51,559 posts)https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=11023248
And now you complain about "partisan reactionary defensiveness" while at the same time admitting "they did the best they could."
WTF
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Squinch
(50,950 posts)
JHan
(10,173 posts)( and Before anyone tells me I don't think healthcare is a right, I do believe it is a right).
Often European countries are referenced when talking about this plan but no country in Europe has medicare for all. European health care systems are hybrid systems or, "multi-payer" which incorporate private insurance.
Healthcare in America is complicated. From Medicare D plans to how Medicare costs will be absorbed are important policy details defenders of this plan shouldn't dismiss as criticism coming from "haters".
Protecting the ACA should be the focus of all Democrats. An imperiled ACA is what drove constituents last year to challenge their Republican representatives in town halls. Now the talk is Medicare for all while Republicans kill the ACA by stealth. Once the public option is restored to the ACA, further expansion and reform can be tagged on. I know why this is being pushed right now and it remains an awful strategy.
TheBlackAdder
(28,203 posts).
This type if picayune infighting is what damages the Democratic brand.
.
Squinch
(50,950 posts)RAISE TAXES ON THE RICH.
But it will be useful to know how much it is so we can know what to do to pay for it.
TheBlackAdder
(28,203 posts).
The government pees away $200 Billion just in tax breaks for the rich and wasteful programs.
.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)what AOC and Sanders said it did?
Even the author says so:
https://www.factcheck.org/2018/08/the-cost-of-medicare-for-all/
And Tapper said at the end of the video that CNN was not making any comments on MFA - just the difference between what AOC and Sanders said about the study and what the study actually concluded.
If there are any "horses and handgrenades" it's the difference between what the study concluded, and what Sanders and AOC said it concluded.
TheBlackAdder
(28,203 posts).
It's just more of the same, prove Sanders wrong, even though the spirit of his effort is to get Universal Healthcare passed--something that used to be a Democratic Party objective. All politicians stretch the truth, even Obama and Clinton. The larger objective is what is important here, instead of more purity testing, which is growing quite tiresome.
.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)never to be fact checked, because the MFA is good, and the MFA is Bernie's, so any fact checking that shows Bernie making a mistake is against "good" and against "Bernie."
A false dilemma.
Whataboutism? And perhaps you don't remember how Obama was raked over the coals for the "stretching of the truth" about "being able to keep your doctor." And Hillary was excoriated for every single mistake, and indeed times when she was the only one being honest about health care reform.
Nonsense. Universal Health Care is a Democratic Party objective. The ACA is a Democratic law, if memory serves, and is the furthest down the road to UHC we've ever come as a country. I invite you to read the Democratic Platform sometime. You might be surprised and what you don't know.
I think you are not the only person on DU that still insist that Universal Health Care is defined as MFA, and not the other way around.
Apparently if Sanders and acolytes "stretch the truth" then it's you know, different, because REASONS! Because if he's shown to be wrong about one statement that means you're saying that he's wrong about EVERYTHING! And you HATE universal health care!!!
lapucelle
(18,265 posts)It's a better bill, and detailed funding measures are included.
http://www.medicareforall.org/pages/HR676#toc
lapucelle
(18,265 posts)(1) IN GENERAL- There are appropriated to the Medicare for All Trust Fund amounts sufficient to carry out this Act from the following sources:
[NOTE: the following part of H.R. 676 describes only one idea for the funding. After sufficient support is established in the U.S. House of Representatives, many funding options will likely be debated. It will be important for some citizens to monitor the progress and give input at that time. In the meantime, any ideas or wishes you have for funding should be sent by letter in the U.S. Mail to your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators.]
(A) Existing sources of Federal government revenues for health care.
(B) Increasing personal income taxes on the top 5 percent income earners.
(to do: need to communicate what level of income this means)
(C) Instituting a modest and progressive excise tax on payroll and self-employment income.
[Current Medicare tax: 1.45% paid by employers and employees.]
(D) Instituting a modest tax on unearned income.
[This is an additional source of funding … added to the H.R. 676 that was proposed in the previous session of Congress. The expected percentage is not yet available. H.R. 676 will not be given an economic evaluation by the Congressional Budget Office until it gets to at least 100 cosponsors<.]
(E) Instituting a small tax on stock and bond transactions.
(2) SYSTEM SAVINGS AS A SOURCE OF FINANCING- Funding otherwise required for the Program is reduced as a result of–
(A) vastly reducing paperwork
[Elimination of unnecessary administrative activities within all of our health care bureaucracy]
[for-profit bureaucracy]
[government bureaucracy]
[supporting bureaucracy that results from the other two types of bureauracracy and the overall negative situation that they cause]
[ Go to Costs and Savings for more information.]
(B) requiring a rational bulk procurement of medications under section 205(a).
(C) improved access to preventive health care.
(3) ADDITIONAL ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS TO MEDICARE FOR ALL PROGRAM- Additional sums are authorized to be appropriated annually as needed to maintain maximum quality, efficiency, and access under the Program.
There's no need to reinvent the wheel that John Conyers invented in 2003. What we need is a senate version of this bill.
http://www.medicareforall.org/pages/Bernie_Sanders
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Additionally, the plan bars private insurers from providing “health insurance coverage that duplicates the benefits provided under this Act,” and would slowly expand to edge those insurers out of the market over the course of four years.
What takes shape over the 96-page document isn’t really a scaled-up Medicare program, but something new altogether. As currently constructed, Medicare actually contains quite a bit of cost-sharing—particularly for prescription drugs—and an entire industry of private plans exist to beef up Medicare coverage and provide additional services for seniors. Sanders’s plan would more accurately be described as The U.K.’s NHS on steroids—a entirely government-backed endeavor bounded only by the limits of the delivery system and of the tax base that pays for it all.
But that last point is crucial. Especially in a system with no artificial or individual limits on how people can use their health insurance, the funding structure is absolutely vital to understanding how the system as a whole will respond to the health-care choices of over 300 million people. And beyond the “how will they pay for it?” criticisms from both Republicans and Democratic holdouts, for all American health-care reforms—especially one this massive—questions of redistribution, the minutiae of tax policy, and how those economic factors shape and alter behaviors and health-care choices are important. In fact, those questions are as important in understanding if the policy actually meets the goals of covering people and containing costs as the specifications of Medicare benefits.
And the Sanders plan, as of yet, answers none of those questions.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/09/medicare-for-all-tax-policy/539715/
Nanjeanne
(4,960 posts)Tapper shows a video of Bernie Sanders saying: “Let me thank the Koch Brothers, of all people, for sponsoring a study that shows that Medicare for All would save the American people $2 trillion over a 10-year period.” This claim made by Sanders is 100 percent correct. There are no errors in it and it is not deceptive in any way.
Then Tapper works overtime to find an error in a statement that is entirely true. Well - He lies.
Specifically, Tapper describes Sanders’s claim as such: “... a study funded by the billionaire Koch brothers [shows that] the Medicare for All proposal would actually save the government money.”
Even more egregious is Tapper then goes on to “debunk” the claim that “the government” would save $2 trillion and declare Bernie Sanders a liar, even though Sanders actually said “the American people” would save $2 trillion, which is entirely true.
When you have to blatantly lie about something to make a point — you need a new fact checker. And Tapper should be ashamed of himself. There are many more errors in this video particularly using “facts” from the author of the Koch Brothers report to support his own report. But you, know, you would actually have to do real analysis on real facts before reporting. A good starting point would have talked to Sanders first but hey — who has time for that?
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)is what the taxpayers - AKA "the American People" - give them.
To say otherwise is really a right-wing POV.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)The reason that the distinction is important is that "the American People" spend money on healthcare (as do their employers) that the government does not. So when you go to a M4A system, the government might pay "more" but the American people, in total can pay less.
I'll admit, that Bernie and the gang haven't come up with a great way of explaining this. What they keep trying to point out is that if you look IN TOTAL at what people are paying for health CARE, which includes what their employers are paying, that can actually be reduced through single payer type schemes. Yes, the government will have to collect more. But one big part of that will be getting what the employers are already paying. If we don't, it will be a HUGE windfall for employers. If they suddenly don't have to pay for health insurance, it's not like they are going to instantly pay their employees more. And yes, in some way they're going to have to get some of what each of us are paying "out of pocket" to fund the system. But in the end, the total that we all pay will go DOWN. (Oh, and outcomes will probably improve as well).
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)If "the Government" is paying for something, that money comes from taxpayers.
Yes, individual taxpayer pay different amounts, but muddling what individual taxpayers pay, vs what the Government spends isn't what is being discussed when the poster splits hairs about using the term "American People" interchangeably with "Government" when talking about spending - which is actually interchangeable in the context of what CNN and Factcheck.org were talking about in this study, and what Sanders and AOC misrepresented.
Is that clearer?
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)I think Bernie specifically means the American people instead of "the government". It's not that he's "separating" he's making a distinction. (And to be a nitpicker, not all government revenue comes from the American People).
As I say, Bernie hasn't come up with a clearer way of expressing this important distinction.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)And it does not change the fact that Sanders and AOC misrepresented the study conclusions.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)He's put out a statement acknowledging the error and says the video will be changed.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)deductibles, etc. that AREN'T counted as being paid for by the government. All of that gets incorporated into the tax code under a medicare for all plan, the question is whether this is more effecient and would overall lower costs for most Americans.
Example, my dad was laid off in January, 2 years before retirement, he now has to pay well over 1000 dollars a month in premiums alone for his health individual insurance due to there being no Medicare buy in for those 55+(thank for nothing Joe Lieberman). This is also on top of all the FICA taxes he paid for the decades of employment he worked for Medicare and Social Security. Now, if the option existed where he could have bought into Medicare, would its costs equal that 1000 dollars, or is it likely to be far less?
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)concerning the conclusions of the study - he was wrong on what it stated concerning costs.
https://www.factcheck.org/2018/08/the-cost-of-medicare-for-all/
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)https://www.factcheck.org/2018/08/the-cost-of-medicare-for-all/
Nanjeanne
(4,960 posts)the conclusion is going to be also flawed.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)and coming to the "correct conclusion" about the study?
Not clear on what you're saying here....
Or are you saying that the study author doesn't understand what his study actually concluded?
But in the report, Blahous cautions that the assumption is suspect.
Blahous, July 2018: It is not precisely predictable how hospitals, physicians, and other healthcare providers would respond to a dramatic reduction in their reimbursements under M4A, well below their costs of care for all categories of patients combined. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Office of the Actuary has projected that even upholding current-law reimbursement rates for treating Medicare beneficiaries alone would cause nearly half of all hospitals to have negative total facility margins by 2040. The same study found that by 2019, over 80 percent of hospitals will lose money treating Medicare patients — a situation M4A would extend, to a first approximation, to all US patients. Perhaps some facilities and physicians would be able to generate heretofore unachieved cost savings that would enable their continued functioning without significant disruptions. However, at least some undoubtedly would not, thereby reducing the supply of healthcare services at the same time M4A sharply increases healthcare demand. It is impossible to say precisely how much the confluence of these factors would reduce individuals’ timely access to healthcare services, but some such access problems almost certainly must arise.
Anticipating these difficulties, some other studies have assumed that M4A payment rates must exceed current-law Medicare payment rates to avoid sending facilities into deficit on average or to avoid triggering unacceptable reductions in the provision and quality of healthcare services. These alternative payment rate assumptions substantially increase the total projected costs of M4A.
In what way does this support Sanders' and Ocasio's claim that this study backs up Sanders' MFA cost projections,?
https://www.factcheck.org/2018/08/the-cost-of-medicare-for-all/
And Tapper said at the end of that video - if you got that far - that CNN is not commenting on the viability of MFA, just the accuracy of Sanders and AOC's claims on the conclusion of the study.
Nanjeanne
(4,960 posts)Ridiculous.
Tapper says “The study’s author says that that $2 trillion drop is not actually his conclusion. He says that’s based on assumptions by Senator Sanders.” Tapper then turns to the “alternative scenario” Blahous constructs in the appendix of his report, which shows that, if you do not do Bernie Sanders’s plan but instead do a different plan with higher provider payment rates, then obviously the overall cost of the plan increases.
There’s a problem with that. And using Mercatus to defend Mercatus study is kind of silly.
The provider payment rates in Sanders’s plan are not assumptions. There are a lot of assumptions that go into scoring these plans. For instance, you have to make assumptions about how much more people will go to the doctor and how much more medicine they will take. But Provider payment rates are not assumptions. They are written into the law itself. If Sanders says he is going to use Medicare reimbursement rates to pay providers, then that is what he is going to use. Using something to score that replaces those rates with some other set of rates is not a score of Sanders’s plan. That’s number one.
Also why does Tapper (and Fact-check) believe what Blahous tells him about the study. What happened in this case is that Blahous wrote a study that showed federal expenditures would increase by $32.6 trillion and then buried the fact that this same estimate showed Americans overall would save $2 trillion in the tables of his report. After some writers and politicians pickd up on this - Blahous then claimed that the estimate he just got finished promoting to the world is actually not the real one and that instead the real estimate is the one in the appendix that he calls an “alternative scenario” and that he says explicitly in the paper does not track Sanders’s plan as written.
Why does anyone take for a given that Blahous’s new representation of his study, which came after he saw the reaction to it, should be assumed to be the correct one just because he authored the initial study. Rather the initial study stands alone and says what it says.
If a journalist doesn’t have the necessary skills to analyze the full Sanders report, and no reason why they should, they need to talk to a lot of people from different sides who have read the report and have the skills necessary to describe it to you. Instead, Tapper decided to only ask Blahous, who has an incentive to deceive people, what the report says rather than asking neutral experts or experts from different political persuasions to describe the report. Same with fact check fact checking in this case
places like fact-check.org can serve a useful purpose sometimes. But people need to actually read and think things through themselves using lots of sources. If the premise is flawed - as it was in this case - then conclusions can only be flawed.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)but Sanders and AOC seem to think that the study by this author is "evidence" that it backs up Sanders' claims on costs and funding?
Can link to his "original" representation of his study that you are saying is different?
“To argue that we can get to that level of savings by getting rid of the health insurance middleman is inconsistent with my study,” Blahous said. “To lend credibility to the $2 trillion savings number specifically, one would have to argue that we can make those 40 percent cuts to providers at the same time as increasing demand by about 11 percent, without triggering disruptions of access to care that lawmakers and the public find unacceptable.”
The report similarly uses assumptions in the Sanders bill about savings on administrative costs and on the cost of prescription drugs. Blahous describes these assumptions as “aggressive” and his report includes arguments that suggest they are unlikely.”
Said Blahous: “If you ask somebody ‘How much would something cost?’ and if they responded with, ‘Well, if you assume X the cost would be Y, but that’s an unrealistic assumption, actual costs would be higher’ – it’s not accurate to say ‘He says the cost is Y!’ When I wrote that ‘actual costs’ would be higher, I meant it. And I haven’t simply said that in response to comments like the candidate’s – I had previously put it front and center on the study itself.”
https://www.factcheck.org/2018/08/the-cost-of-medicare-for-all/
This is not about "the Sanders report" whatever that is (I assume you are talking about MFA) one only needs to determine if he correctly represented the conclusions of the study.
Factcheck.org and CNN worked together on this, and determined that Sanders and AOC misrepresented the conclusions of the report.
Because he's the author of the study. And if the author of the study can't be trusted to tell the truth, then why are Sanders and AOC using his study as "evidence" to support MFA? Which is it?
That is really jumping the shark when you attempt to discredit the person that Sanders and AOC are quoting....to give credibility to Sander and AOC...
There seems to be an attitude that since "MFA" is the only moral way to get UHC, that any statement made to increase it's popularity, or the credibilty of it's author is also therefore moral, and any factchecking is therefore "against universal healthcare" and "its premise is flawed."
Nanjeanne
(4,960 posts)on wrong assumptions should not be trusted to then revisit his study and make a new analysis based on his already proven wrong assumptions.
The rest of your post I just will ignore. Anyone saying things like "jumping the shark" is already showing their incredible bias and really doesn't care two cents about what I'm trying to explain to you.
But thanks for pretending you give a shit.
Snotcicles
(9,089 posts)heaven05
(18,124 posts)and co-opting of our Democratic Party policies as their 'new' policies ....
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)the government money. Its going to cost the Government, through us more, but its likely we will end up paying less through saving in redundant administrative costs(Medicare's are a fraction of private insurance) and, more importantly, empowering Medicare to negotiate pricing for medical services and drugs. I thought people already knew this?
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,330 posts).... the study.
Oh but Tapper says “for what it’s worth” so that excuses Tapper’s outright bullshit. I mean if the Koch brothers mouth piece says so...
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)on costs.
And they don't even get that right.
“Proponents are perfectly free to argue for those provider cuts and to say that THEY believe M4A will therefore lower national health spending, — and also to cite whatever data they want in support of their arguments, from any study they find credible,” Blahous told us. “What they shouldn’t say is that I also reached that conclusion, because that’s incorrect. That finding should not be attributed to me or to my study.”
https://www.factcheck.org/2018/08/the-cost-of-medicare-for-all/
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)From Factcheck.org:
“To argue that we can get to that level of savings by getting rid of the health insurance middleman is inconsistent with my study,” Blahous said. “To lend credibility to the $2 trillion savings number specifically, one would have to argue that we can make those 40 percent cuts to providers at the same time as increasing demand by about 11 percent, without triggering disruptions of access to care that lawmakers and the public find unacceptable.”
The report similarly uses assumptions in the Sanders bill about savings on administrative costs and on the cost of prescription drugs. Blahous describes these assumptions as “aggressive” and his report includes arguments that suggest they are unlikely.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)There would be savings from cutting profits and bureaucratic redundancy, along with streamlining billling with health care providers.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)https://www.factcheck.org/2018/08/the-cost-of-medicare-for-all/
sheshe2
(83,773 posts)Thank you, ehrnst.
KWR65
(1,098 posts)It won't be free health care either. The patient pays taxes or fees for the Medicare coverage. For example, Social Security Recipients pay $145 per month for their coverage. A tax or fee could be required in a MFA system. People covered will stay pay 20% of the bill due just like they do now. A business could be taxed $11k per worker which would be about $5 per hour for a full time worker. That is much cheaper then what they are paying now for private Medical insurance.
Gone will be the ability for the 1% to charge huge prices for Medical care and prescription drug coverage with price limits set by Medicare.
We can also allow people to opt out. But if they opt out of MFA then they opt out for life. So if they lose their private health insurance and get sick they can't join MFA. This is the way it is Germany and the System works well.
SunSeeker
(51,559 posts)dsc
(52,162 posts)neither Sanders nor cortez said the government would save money they said the people would
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,330 posts)That’s bad enough. But Tapper spends half of the “fact check” providing cover for the ridiculous claim the Koch brothers didn’t influence the study. And people here agree with him.
Nanjeanne
(4,960 posts)Bernie and AOC - and so it's just a losing battle to have a substative discussion. Them bad. Koch good. Drink up!
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Them bad when they say something we don't like - and so it's just a losing battle to have a substative discussion,
Drink up!
Nanjeanne
(4,960 posts)Organization. Not a fact. In this case it is using wrong information as a basis for analyzing something to read a conclusion that is flawed based on that. Fact check isn’t an economic policy individual actually doing research. But I’m sure you know that. Unfortunately in this world people read a tweet or a headline or someone else’s opinion and if they don’t like the thing or person it’s discussing. - or if it gives them the conclusion they want to feel validated - it’s got to be true.
Fact check, in my mind, is not good or bad. They are wrong in this case. I don’t like their conclusion because it’s been shown to be incorrect. But that requires actually thinking.
I did have a drink. Last night though. Too early this morning. An Aperol Spritz. It was lovely, thanks!
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Last edited Tue Aug 21, 2018, 08:45 AM - Edit history (2)
It is an organization with an agenda and and expertise in fact checking public statements and claims, no matter the topic or the subject. The subject was the claims made by Sanders about the conclusions of a particular study were accurate. One doesn't need to be a policy expert to determine what the actual claims were or weren't - Senator Sanders is a prime example of that.
You are accusing them of providing "alternative facts." They have not. You don't like the conclusion, because they found that Sanders was not accurate in his claims concerning the study. To put it another way - if it gives one the conclusion that doesn't make them feel validated - it’s got to be incorrect.
Factcheck.org went to the author of the study to confirm the actual conclusions of the study, which is apparently something that Sanders did not feel was neccessary. I suppose you believe that the study author is also "incorrect" about the conclusions of his study?
The report similarly uses assumptions in the Sanders bill about savings on administrative costs and on the cost of prescription drugs. Blahous describes these assumptions as “aggressive” and his report includes arguments that suggest they are unlikely.”
Said Blahous: “If you ask somebody ‘How much would something cost?’ and if they responded with, ‘Well, if you assume X the cost would be Y, but that’s an unrealistic assumption, actual costs would be higher’ – it’s not accurate to say ‘He says the cost is Y!’ When I wrote that ‘actual costs’ would be higher, I meant it. And I haven’t simply said that in response to comments like the candidate’s – I had previously put it front and center on the study itself.””
https://www.factcheck.org/2018/08/the-cost-of-medicare-for-all/
Interestingly - Politifact and the Washington Post fact check team also came to the same conclusion that Factcheck.org did - that what Sanders and AOC claim is not backed up by the study's actual conclusions, and again, unlike Sanders, they actually contacted the study author to find out what the study actually concluded concerning costs.
In the fourth sentence of the report’s abstract, Blahous wrote, “It is likely that the actual cost of M4A would be substantially greater than these estimates, which assume significant administrative and drug cost savings under the plan, and also assume that healthcare providers operating under M4A will be reimbursed at rates more than 40 percent lower than those currently paid by private health insurance.”
So while the number Sanders chose really does appear in the report, he’s cherry-picked the more flattering of two estimates.
Sanders’ bill "indicates that health providers would be paid at Medicare’s payment rates, which are about 40 percent lower than those paid by private insurance," Blahous said. "Obviously, immediately cutting payments to health care providers by roughly 40 percent would lower national health spending."
But would cuts that large actually occur (and without other negative consequences, such as mass retirements of doctors unwilling to accept lower fees)? This is where independent experts express caution.
Sustained cuts as deep as those projected in the Mercatus model Sanders pointed to are "not likely feasible," said John Holahan, a fellow in the health policy center at the Urban Institute. His Urban Institute colleague, Linda Blumberg, agreed, saying it’s a "pretty heroic assumption to say that you can dial payment rates down to those levels system-wide politically."
......................................................................................
Or, as Blahous told us via email, achieving a 40 percent reduction in reimbursement rates is an “unlikely outcome” and “actual costs are likely to be substantially greater.”
https://www.factcheck.org/2018/08/the-cost-of-medicare-for-all/
“To argue that we can get to that level of savings by getting rid of the health insurance middleman is inconsistent with my study,” Blahous said. “To lend credibility to the $2 trillion savings number specifically, one would have to argue that we can make those 40 percent cuts to providers at the same time as increasing demand by about 11 percent, without triggering disruptions of access to care that lawmakers and the public find unacceptable.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/08/07/democrats-seize-on-cherry-picked-claim-that-medicare-for-all-will-save-2-trillion/
ucrdem
(15,512 posts) dsc
(52,162 posts)but the real point is that both Sanders and AOC are saying that the study says total spending from all sources would go down, which is true they are not saying the study says government spending would go down which would be false.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)The government is funded by people - also known as taxpayers.
jalan48
(13,869 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Which "corpo?"
jalan48
(13,869 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)"corpo health care" or why they would have an agenda to speak the "corpo line" for "corpo health care."
Can you clarify?
aidbo
(2,328 posts)