The Fact-Checkers Are Clueless

[Uncle Joe]

CNN’s Jake Tapper released a video on Friday claiming to fact-check Bernie Sanders’s claims about the cost of Medicare for All. Tapper’s fact check follows in the tradition of the fact checks that came before him in that it is riddled with errors that the libertarian Mercatus Center fed him. At this point, I think it is safe to say that one of the main impediments to the success of Medicare for All is that liberal and centrist media is mostly too stupid or dishonest to accurately describe the proposal to their audience.

(snip)

In Tapper’s fact check, he 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 ten-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.

So how does Tapper find an error in a statement that is entirely true? By pretending that Bernie Sanders said something other than what he said. Specifically, Tapper describes Sanders’s claim as such: “[Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez] say that a study funded by the billionaire Koch brothers [shows that] the Medicare-for-All proposal would actually save the government money.”

(snip)

The first is that 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 the provider payment rates are not assumptions; rather, 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. Any score that replaces those rates with some other set of rates is straightforwardly not a score of Sanders’s plan. End of discussion.

(snip)

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/08/bernie-sanders-mercatus-study-medicare-for-all

This is an excellent read.

[Hortensis]

1. No, they're not. And facts matter.

As evidenced by the many people and organizations analyzing Sanders' misleadingly named Medicare for All, not just one. We all want universal healthcare, but any plan has to be doable.

It's way past time for Senator Sanders to finally consult experts to design a workable plan for him to sell to the public.

He might ask Hillary. No need to reinvent the wheel from scratch. She has been committed to universal healthcare for decades and no doubt could provide stacks of studies, data, and the various plans, including a number of single payer types, that experts have developed when considering how to get there.

[Uncle Joe]

3. The OP cites explicit examples

of "fact checker (s)" incompetence or malfeasance.

Bernie speaking about the American Peoples' savings of two trillion dollars and Tapper spinning his answer into Bernie claiming the "government" would save this money.

Bernie's claim of the two trillion dollars in savings actually supported in the Mercatus Study based on Bernie's plan, of course Mercatus wasn't happy with that so he created an alternative reality where the Medicare reimbursement rates were different and they claim that Bernie is being disingenuous!?

The first is that 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 the provider payment rates are not assumptions; rather, 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. Any score that replaces those rates with some other set of rates is straightforwardly not a score of Sanders’s plan. End of discussion.

(snip)

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/08/bernie-sanders-mercatus-study-medicare-for-all

[George II]

10. Yes, he's "speaking about the American Peoples' savings" but giving precious little detail about....

....where those savings come from.

Where can one find this law (actually proposed law)? I haven't been able to find specifics.

[Uncle Joe]

13. Using BERNIE'S PLAN, even the Mercatus report reflected two trillion dollars in savings,

but if you want more specifics of Bernie's plan this is from my post #12

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/1804/text

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/1804/text#toc-id6cbd889ca09d4bb7937d5e6ecadbcf6f

[Gothmog]

17. Has this plan been adopted in Vermont yet?

How is that going? Vermont is a small homogeneous state. Why has this plan not been adopted in Vermont if it makes so much sense?

[Uncle Joe]

25. Forest and the trees.

[Gothmog]

29. Again if sanders has a magical plan then get it adopted in Vermont

I trust CNN over the source you cited.

[Uncle Joe]

39. Bernie is one of Vermont's U.S. Senators not the Governor of that fine state.

The source is secondary to me, I have used and will continue use CNN in the future but that doesn't require me to buy everything they're selling.

I get my info from a multitude of sources but I take it all with a grain of salt.

[ehrnst]

31. Actually, his refusal to talk about Green Mountain Care's failure, and possible lessons learned

indicates that he doesn't understand why it failed, or doesn't want people talking about it.

He has presented himself as the ultimate source on Medicare for All, but won't "speculate" on why it didn't get off the ground with a population that elected him to represent him in the Senate. And refuses to discuss what we could learn from that implementing it federally.

That is definitely significant. And it certainly shows no tolerance for even discussing anything that doesn't simply support what he says, or go in a direction that he might not be capable of discussing.

[Uncle Joe]

48. Vermont is not an island in the ocean and has a small population to boot, it's not even a

wealthy state, one can hardly compare that to a national health care program supported by the full faith and credit of the United States.

[Hortensis]

23. Gothmog has a good point. The desire to stick to

Senator Sanders' point is perfectly understandable. But why would anyone but him do that?

MANY experts have examined this plan and found big discrepancies. And let's remember, the plan he actually ran for president on in 2016, that he promised to the American public, was so undefendable that he's moved on to a new vaguely conceived product.

Now, to the real point: Senator Sanders has an absolute duty to stop shining people on and finally come up with a genuine plan that would actually be there for them, and be all he's been promising for over 3 years now, when cancer or a drunk driver struck.

[Uncle Joe]

36. When Bernie was citing two trillion dollars in savings for the American People listed in the

Koch funded Mercatus Report, that was based on his plan.

Bernie spoke the truth, that's the point.

Tapper and other media "fact checkers" have mislead at best in criticizing Bernie's response and the overall benefits to the nation from a Medicare for All heath care plan.

Are the sixteen Democratic Senators co-sponsoring Bernie's Medicare for Bill "shining" as well?

(snip)



Mid-morning on Wednesday, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) became the sixteenth co-sponsor of the bill. She was immediately thanked.

(snip)

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/09/13/now-there-are-16-democrats-receiving-thanks-and-applause-co-sponsoring-medicare-all

[Hortensis]

41. Trump and Sanders BOTH promised BETTER healthcare

with BETTER coverages for LESS cost.

BOTH never came up with a workable plan.

BOTH nevertheless told all their followers to believe that OBAMACARE was too awful to be continued -- in spite of BOTH not having a guaranteed replacement in hand for it. This even though Obamacare greatly improves healthcare for EVERYONE with healthcare, also for everyone without insurance who gets care anyway, and of course even though it also insures millions who were previously without. This even though endangering and then losing Obamacare without guaranteed replacement already in place would cause great harm to all.

BOTH lead populist movements that, among others, also appeal to a special type: social conservatives who like progressive government programs and loathe both Obama and Hillary. (Sound like any people you might have run into here on DU, of course not as strong as before most who couldn't control their anti-Dem/anti-Hillary bile were run off?)

Btw, for comparison Obama and the Democratic caucuses in congress promised reform and institution of national healthcare and delivered. Hillary played a significant role even though she had left the senate for the cabinet during most of the bill's actual writing. Both Obama and Hillary are supported by most liberals of all factions and a large majority of minority conservatives. Both Trump and Sanders are not.

[Uncle Joe]

46. "National" healthcare?

Btw, for comparison Obama and the Democratic caucuses in congress promised reform and institution of national healthcare and delivered. Hillary played a significant role even though she had left the senate for the cabinet during most of the bill's actual writing. Both Obama and Hillary appeal to liberals of all factions and a large majority of minority conservatives.

There are 28 million uninsured under Obamacare. Here’s who they are.

(snip)

Setting aside the fact that the Trump administration has supported legislation that would cause millions more Americans to lose coverage — something I wrote about in more detail here — it is worth taking a moment to look at who these 28 million people are, and why they lack coverage. Among them are unauthorized immigrants, low-income people in states that didn’t expand Medicaid, people who decided insurance was too expensive, and some who just decided to take the risk and live without it.

Nonprofits, which have done a lot of great research on this question, find that about half of the uninsured population doesn’t qualify for help from the Affordable Care Act. The other half, for various reasons, have not enrolled in coverage:

(snip)

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/6/29/15892642/28-million-uninsured-obamacare

We don't have national health care.

Bernie has a plan; Medicare for All it has sixteen Democratic Senate co-sponsors.

[Hortensis]

50. Sanders needs to break that BOTH by producing a plan

that could actually be instituted. Until then that BOTH stands: BOTH Trump and Sanders have used promises of better healthcare than the ACA for less money (or, as some imagine, none) to draw followers. And that's it.

Yes, unlike Trump, Sanders no doubt sincerely wants a universal healthcare program, but unicorns don't vaccinate babies and put shattered legs back together. It has to be REAL.

And yes, the ACA is currently national healthcare, not yet universal, though that was and still is the plan in spite of the GOP's conservative Supreme Court successes. However, national is huge: Most of the ACA affects healthcare across the nation. Remember that when the power stays down but your local hospital, wherever it is, has full power and other requirements critical to operate as before for no less than 72 hours. Or when when you have a right to review your personal healthcare record in your PCP's office, learn your penicillin allergy and history of diverticulitis aren't on it, and have the right to insist on adding them under your own name even if your new PCP won't do it without running a couple thousand dollars worth of tests. And hundreds of other important advances in providing care.

[Uncle Joe]

51. It's not a static world Hortensis what can't be achieved today can very well be done

after November of 2018 and 2020 if not shortly there after.

Bernie's plan is real and has gained 16 Democratic Senator co-sponsors from an earlier version just a few short years ago.

Trump doesn't want jack shit except more money and power for himself.

The ACA was and is a positive improvement over what we had before but I don't believe in letting the good be the enemy of the perfect.

[ehrnst]

34. From the Mercatus report:

M4A Would Place Unprecedented Strain on the Federal Budget

By conservative estimates, this legislation would have the following effects:

-M4A would add approximately $32.6 trillion to federal budget commitments during the first 10 years of its implementation (2022–2031).
-This projected increase in federal healthcare commitments would equal approximately 10.7 percent of GDP in 2022. This amount would rise to nearly 12.7 percent of GDP in 2031 and continue to rise thereafter.

M4A’s Dramatic Federal Cost Increase Arises from Several Factors

-First and foremost, the federal government would become responsible for financing nearly all current national health spending, including individual private insurance and state spending.
-M4A would increase federal health spending on the currently uninsured as well as those who now carry insurance by providing first-dollar coverage of their healthcare expenditures across the board, without deductibles or copayments.
-M4A would expand the range of services covered by federal insurance (for example, dental, vision, and hearing benefits).
-M4A would dramatically expand the demand for healthcare services, consistent with economics research findings that the more of an individual’s health costs are covered by insurance, the more services they tend to buy, irrespective of the services’ efficacy and value.

https://www.mercatus.org/publications/federal-fiscal-policy/costs-national-single-payer-healthcare-system

(this is citing the Mercatus report which has been cited by Sanders and AOC - so, no I am not promoting a right wing source, but giving a larger clip of the study that Sanders is citing.)

From Factcheck.org:

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.”

“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/

[dansolo]

81. Bernie's PLAN isn't a law yet

How can you honestly claim that Bernie's plan will be passed as is?

[Uncle Joe]

82. It's a bill and Blahous of the Koch funded Mercatus Center based his findings

on Bernie's bill which reflected 2+ trillion dollars in savings over ten years.

Blahous and his bosses weren't happy with that outcome so he proposed an alternate reality scenario NOT based on the economic/financial requirements of the actual BILL.

[JHan]

35. that expenditure cut is based on a huge assumption:

.. that health care providers will take a 40% cut in reimbursement rates for those moving from private insurers to Medicare for all ( they won't)

"The Unaccounted For Externalities"

"M4A would markedly increase the demand for healthcare services while simultaneously cutting payments to provid­ers by more than 40 percent, reducing payments to levels that are lower on average than providers’ current costs of providing care. It cannot be known how much providers will react to these losses by reducing the availabil­ity of existing health services, the quality of such services, or both."

https://www.mercatus.org/publications/federal-fiscal-policy/costs-national-single-payer-healthcare-system

Further, health care providers are not required to accept Medicare/Medicaid patients

Blahous' approach to the study was to be generous, making some assumptions on a best-case scenario ( this points to the methodology used) and he has expressed reservations about assumptions made by Sanders and others about the cut in expenditure, calling these assumptions unreasonable.

We all want the same things but we have to do better than just stating we want something without respecting the electorate enough to be detailed in our plans. There's too much at stake and at risk here.

The U.S population is huge and diverse, from inception health care laws have been designed around a system of private insurance. There are systems of public insurance/care like Medicare, Medicaid, Tricare , VA, Indian health service and so on, and compounding these programs are the individual laws governing payments state by state.

so yeah, details matter. And the author of the article in your OP calling critiques examples of "malfeasance" is him being intellectually disingenuous.

Also expanding talking points aren't a substantive rebuttal to "mainstream factcheckers".

[brer cat]

77. ++++++

This is huge, but seldom discussed:

"M4A would markedly increase the demand for healthcare services while simultaneously cutting payments to provid­ers by more than 40 percent, reducing payments to levels that are lower on average than providers’ current costs of providing care. It cannot be known how much providers will react to these losses by reducing the availabil­ity of existing health services, the quality of such services, or both."

There are many physicians now who don't accept or limit the Medicare patients they see. M4A does limited good if patients can't get into see a provider in a timely manner.

I agree that we all want the same outcome, but details matter.

[Gothmog]

2. I trust CNN and the other fact checkers

[Uncle Joe]

5. I trust the facts

[Gothmog]

15. So do I, which is why I trust Tapper

[Uncle Joe]

19. Did you listen to your own video Tapper either begins misleading or lies at about

the 26 second mark and then run it to Bernie/Alexandria's clip to past the 60 second mark.

Tapper changes what Bernie's says in his own video from "American People" to "government" and that's just for starters.

I even posted a link to this same video on post# 8

[Gothmog]

20. I both listened to it and I actually understood it

If this plan is so great, when will it be adopted in Vermont?

[Uncle Joe]

22. Do you believe "government" and the "American People" are the same thing in regards to this issue?

[Gothmog]

24. LOL-so when will we hear about Vermont adopting this plan?

We are waiting

[brush]

42. Who pays for the 20% of medical bills that Medicare doesn't cover? It only covers 80%

[Uncle Joe]

44. Who pays for the bills that the uninsured leave at the emergency room doorstep?

Who pays for the bills of the hundreds of thousands of medical bankruptcies that the U.S. suffers from every year?

[brush]

45. I'm asking a serious question. If you don't know if Medicare for all pays for it just say so.

[Uncle Joe]

47. My questions were quite serious, I suspect you know who pays for it.

As to your question, Medicare for All will be an improvement over existing coverage on multiple fronts, dental, vision and hearing as well.

SEC. 202. NO COST-SHARING.

(a) In General.—The Secretary shall ensure that no cost-sharing, including deductibles, coinsurance, copayments, or similar charges, be imposed on an individual for any benefits provided under this Act, except as described in subsection (b).

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/1804/text#toc-id6cbd889ca09d4bb7937d5e6ecadbcf6f

[brush]

55. I don't know. It's a simple question. People with Medicare have to pay the 20%.

Who pays it with Medicare for All, the plan or the people who get treated.

If you know the answer just say so without giving me a link to try to search for the answer.

[ehrnst]

63. I understand there is a detailed plan, but have yet to see it

in that sort of detail.

"But I'm not going to speculate on that," as a particular politician often likes to say when asked tough questions about his ideas.

[Uncle Joe]

68. I just posted the relevant paragraph, the plan does.

SEC. 202. NO COST-SHARING.

(a) In General.—The Secretary shall ensure that no cost-sharing, including deductibles, coinsurance, copayments, or similar charges, be imposed on an individual for any benefits provided under this Act, except as described in subsection (b).

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/1804/text#toc-id6cbd889ca09d4bb7937d5e6ecadbcf6f

[Kurt V.]

27. maybe not

https://www.eschatonblog.com/2018/08/the-man-does-not-like-to-admit-he-is.html

[ehrnst]

38. Got anything on factcheck.org?

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/

And if refusing to admit that one is ever wrong destroys Tapper's credibility, why then is such a trait considered a positive for Senator Sanders, who is lauded for "never changing?"

[ehrnst]

32. Except when they dispute something that Sanders says. (nt)

[JHan]

4. so now anyone who disagrees with Sanders is wrong..

and independent fact checkers are wrong, not just CNN.

Everyone else is wrong except Sanders.

Why does this sound familiar?

[Uncle Joe]

6. Do you have any rebuttals to the actual OP's points of contention?

[JHan]

11. I did.

"mainstream fact checkers are wrong"

that's the point of the entire piece and that's it.. very little on substance. Not surprising, since the actual plan is very little on substance and detail.

And I am not against Medicare for All, neither Universal Health Care.

[ehrnst]

33. "mainstream fact checkers are wrong"

That's Trump's claim.

[JHan]

37. exactly.

the parallels ..

[Eliot Rosewater]

28. It is almost as if someone WANTS universal to fail, ultimately. Or that it should be

contentious at a time when we have bigger fish to fry.

I want it, of course, but I no longer trust Bernie Sanders anymore than I trust Donald Trump. Maybe if he released his tax returns?

The real question EVERYONE here should ask is "is it possible to pass ANY single payer type bill with the current make up of the house, senate and WH and for that matter if the BEST case scenario turns out true after the election, even then?"

The answer is absolutely not, cant happen now, cant happen next year NO MATTER who wins house and senate.

So, what IS important is a little thing called treason by rump and team, but weird how you know who never talks about that.

[George II]

7. I was under the assumption that Sanders' bill was conceptual in nature with very few....

....specific details.

When you go to his website, there's a link that says "Read the full plan" (https://berniesanders.com/medicareforall/), but when you click on it you get this (excuse the lengthy copy/paste) This isn't a "plan" - nothing about how providers will be paid or at what rates.

Medicare for All: Leaving No One Behind

It has been the goal of Democrats since Franklin D. Roosevelt to create a universal health care system guaranteeing health care to all people. Every other major industrialized nation has done so. It is time for this country to join them and fulfill the legacy of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Lyndon B. Johnson and other great Democrats.

The Affordable Care Act was a critically important step towards the goal of universal health care. Thanks to the ACA, more than 17 million Americans have gained health insurance. Millions of low-income Americans have coverage through expanded eligibility for Medicaid that now exists in 31 states. Young adults can stay on their parents’ health plans until they’re 26. All Americans can benefit from increased protections against lifetime coverage limits and exclusion from coverage because of pre-existing conditions. Bernie was on the U.S. Senate committee that helped write the ACA.

But as we move forward, we must build upon the success of the ACA to achieve the goal of universal health care. Twenty-nine million Americans today still do not have health insurance and millions more are underinsured and cannot afford the high copayments and deductibles charged by private health insurance companies that put profits before people.

The U.S. spends more on health care per person, and as a percentage of gross domestic product, than any other advanced nation in the world, including Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Japan, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. But all that money has not made Americans healthier than the rest of the world. Quite simply, in our high-priced health care system that leaves millions overlooked, we spend more yet end up with less.

Other industrialized nations are making the morally principled and financially responsible decision to provide universal health care to all of their people—and they do so while saving money by keeping people healthier. Those who say this goal is unachievable are selling the American people short.

Americans need a health care system that works for patients and providers. We need to focus our federal investments on training the health care providers. We need to ensure a strong health care workforce in all communities now and in the future. We need to build on the strength of the 50 years of success of the Medicare program. We need a health care system that significantly reduces overhead, administrative costs and complexity. We need a system where all people can get the care they need to maintain and improve their health when they need it regardless of income, age or socioeconomic status. We need a system that works not just for millionaires and billionaires, but for all of us.

Under Bernie’s plan, Americans will benefit from the freedom and security that comes with finally separating health insurance from employment. That freedom would not only help the American people live happier, healthier and more fulfilling lives, but it would also promote innovation and entrepreneurship in every sector of the economy. People would be able to start new businesses, stay home with their children or leave jobs they don’t like knowing that they would still have health care coverage for themselves and their families. Employers could be free to focus on running their business rather than spending countless hours figuring out how to provide health insurance to their employees. Working Americans wouldn’t have to choose between bargaining for higher wages or better health insurance. Parents wouldn’t have to worry about how to provide health insurance to their children. Americans would no longer have to fear losing their health insurance if they lose their job, change employment or go part-time. Seniors and people with serious or chronic illnesses could afford the medications necessary to keep them healthy without worry of financial ruin. Millions of people will no longer have to choose between health care and other necessities like food, heat and shelter, and will have access to services that may have been out of reach, like dental care or long-term care.

Simply put, Bernie’s plan will provide all Americans with the sense of freedom and peace of mind that comes from knowing you always have access to the health care you need.

THE PLAN

BETTER COVERAGE

Bernie’s plan would create a federally administered single-payer health care program. Universal single-payer health care means comprehensive coverage for all Americans. Bernie’s plan will cover the entire continuum of health care, from inpatient to outpatient care; preventive to emergency care; primary care to specialty care, including long-term and palliative care; vision, hearing and oral health care; mental health and substance abuse services; as well as prescription medications, medical equipment, supplies, diagnostics and treatments. Patients will be able to choose a health care provider without worrying about whether that provider is in-network and will be able to get the care they need without having to read any fine print or trying to figure out how they can afford the out-of-pocket costs.

WHAT IT MEANS FOR PATIENTS

As a patient, all you need to do is go to the doctor and show your insurance card. Bernie’s plan means no more copays, no more deductibles and no more fighting with insurance companies when they fail to pay for charges.

GETTING HEALTH CARE SPENDING UNDER CONTROL

We outspend all other countries on the planet and our medical spending continues to grow faster than the rate of inflation. Creating a single, public insurance system will go a long way towards getting health care spending under control. The United States has thousands of different health insurance plans, all of which set different reimbursement rates across different networks for providers and procedures resulting in high administrative costs. Two patients with the same condition may get very different care depending on where they live, the health insurance they have and what their insurance covers. A patient may pay different amounts for the same prescription depending solely on where the prescription is filled. Health care providers and patients must navigate this complex and bewildering system wasting precious time and resources.

By moving to an integrated system, the government will finally have the ability to stand up to drug companies and negotiate fair prices for the American people collectively. It will also ensure the federal government can track access to various providers and make smart investments to avoid provider shortages and ensure communities can access the providers they need.

MAJOR SAVINGS FOR FAMILIES AND BUSINESSES

Bernie’s plan will cost over $6 trillion less than the current health care system over the next ten years.

The United States currently spends $3 trillion on health care each year—nearly $10,000 per person. Reforming our health care system, simplifying our payment structure and incentivizing new ways to make sure patients are actually getting better health care will generate massive savings. This plan has been estimated to save the American people and businesses over $6 trillion over the next decade.

The typical middle class family would save over $5,000 under this plan.

Last year, the average working family paid $4,955 in premiums and $1,318 in deductibles to private health insurance companies. Under this plan, a family of four earning $50,000 would pay just $466 per year to the single-payer program, amounting to a savings of over $5,800 for that family each year.

Businesses would save over $9,400 a year in health care costs for the average employee.

The average annual cost to the employer for a worker with a family who makes $50,000 a year would go from $12,591 to just $3,100.

HOW MUCH WILL IT COST AND HOW DO WE PAY FOR IT?

HOW MUCH WILL IT COST?

This plan has been estimated to cost $1.38 trillion per year.

THE PLAN WOULD BE FULLY PAID FOR BY:

A 6.2 percent income-based health care premium paid by employers.

Revenue raised: $630 billion per year.
A 2.2 percent income-based premium paid by households.

Revenue raised: $210 billion per year.This year, a family of four taking the standard deduction can have income up to $28,800 and not pay this tax under this plan.A family of four making $50,000 a year taking the standard deduction would only pay $466 this year.

Progressive income tax rates.

Revenue raised: $110 billion a year.Under this plan the marginal income tax rate would be:

37 percent on income between $250,000 and $500,000.
43 percent on income between $500,000 and $2 million.
48 percent on income between $2 million and $10 million. (In 2013, only 113,000 households, the top 0.08 percent of taxpayers, had income between $2 million and $10 million.)
52 percent on income above $10 million. (In 2013, only 13,000 households, just 0.01 percent of taxpayers, had income exceeding $10 million.)

Taxing capital gains and dividends the same as income from work.

Revenue raised: $92 billion per year. Warren Buffett, the second wealthiest American in the country, has said that he pays a lower effective tax rate than his secretary. The reason is that he receives most of his income from capital gains and dividends, which are taxed at a much lower rate than income from work. This plan will end the special tax break for capital gains and dividends on household income above $250,000.

Limit tax deductions for rich.

Revenue raised: $15 billion per year. Under Bernie’s plan, households making over $250,000 would no longer be able to save more than 28 cents in taxes from every dollar in tax deductions. This limit would replace more complicated and less effective limits on tax breaks for the rich including the AMT, the personal exemption phase-out and the limit on itemized deductions.

The Responsible Estate Tax.

Revenue raised: $21 billion per year.This provision would tax the estates of the wealthiest 0.3 percent (three-tenths of 1 percent) of Americans who inherit over $3.5 million at progressive rates and close loopholes in the estate tax.

Savings from health tax expenditures.

Revenue raised: $310 billion per year. Several tax breaks that subsidize health care (health-related “tax expenditures”) would become obsolete and disappear under a single-payer health care system, saving $310 billion per year.Most importantly, health care provided by employers is compensation that is not subject to payroll taxes or income taxes under current law. This is a significant tax break that would effectively disappear under this plan because all Americans would receive health care through the new single-payer program instead of employer-based health care.

As they say, all sizzle, very little steak.

[Uncle Joe]

12. It's more than conceptual if you want more specifics

Bernie has it jelled out pretty well.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/1804/text

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/1804/text#toc-id6cbd889ca09d4bb7937d5e6ecadbcf6f

[ehrnst]

30. The specifics have been analyzed by independent, non-partisan think tanks.

And their self-funded analysis also found that the numbers didn't quite match up with his claims. It was met with the same outrage that any disagreement in any way of Sanders is always met with.

https://www.urban.org/research/publication/response-criticisms-our-analysis-sanders-health-care-reform-plan

But if one thinks that the author of the study that Sanders is citing isn't trustworthy enough to state what the study conclusions were/ were not, how does one consider Sanders' judgement to be any better?

[Uncle Joe]

40. The author makes assumptions on what the medical community will or won't do and from whence does he

pull those assumptions from?

https://www.nationalnursesunited.org/press/why-do-nurses-support-sen-sandersaeutm-medicare-all-act

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2017/september/doctors%E2%80%99-group-welcomes-sen-sanders%E2%80%99-medicare-for-all-bill

Hospitals probably will have to go non-profit, imagine that.

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single-payer-faq

George Pyle: Anything that isn't welfare for the rich is now 'socialism'


(snip)

A younger generation is more likely to associate the term with, well, the civilized world. The United Kingdom, France, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, etc., etc. Nations where the democratically elected government serves its constituents by setting tax rates high and putting the money toward a wide range of public services, everything from clean and efficient public transit to extended paid maternity leave to universal health care provided through one or another pipeline.

If socialism sounds radical — pleasantly or not — it is because the U.S. is so much like a Third World kleptocracy where all is set to transferring income from the bottom to the top that anything that isn’t welfare for the rich has that label attached to it.

(snip)

Health care belongs in a more socialist model because it isn’t what the private sector is good at. Free marketeers are good, really good, scary good, at stuff. Cars, phones, TVs, mini-fridges, toothpaste, laptops, junk food, T-shirts, toys, scratching posts, novelty coffee cups. Stuff that can be thought up and test-marketed and focus-grouped and manufactured in such amazing bulk that the unit prices drop to a level that most people can afford. And if they can’t afford it they can do without. And if the company selling it goes out of business, it was a rational market decision.

Heath care is not stuff. It is life. It absolutely, positively has no place in a free market because the customer cannot walk away. If you can’t walk away, you aren’t a customer. You’re a victim.

(snip)

https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentary/2018/08/04/george-pyle-anything-that/

[Uncle Joe]

8. Here's a video of Tapper changing Bernie and Alexandria's claim but don't believe your own eyes

https://www.mediaite.com/online/cnns-jake-tapper-fact-checks-bernie-sanders-ocasio-cortez-health-care-claims/

Note that Bernie and Alexandria are speaking of the American People and families and Tapper changes it to ."government" and that's just one major journalistic "error" that Tapper makes in his video claiming not making judgement in regards to Medicare for All.

We need more fact checkers for the "fact checkers."

[George II]

18. Here is what Ricardo Alonzo-Zaldivar from AP has to say about the Mercatus Center paper:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-30/study-medicare-for-all-bill-estimated-at-32-6-trillion

‘Medicare for All’ Would Cost $32.6 Trillion Over 10 Years, Study Says

Washington (AP) -- Sen. Bernie Sanders' "Medicare for all" plan would boost government health spending by $32.6 trillion over 10 years, requiring historic tax hikes, says a study released Monday by a university-based libertarian policy center.

That's trillion with a "T."

The latest plan from the Vermont independent would deliver significant savings on administration and drug costs, but increased demand for care would drive up spending, according to the analysis by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University in Virginia. Doubling federal individual and corporate income tax receipts would not cover the full cost, the study said.

Sanders' plan builds on Medicare, the popular insurance program for seniors. All U.S. residents would be covered with no copays and deductibles for medical services. The insurance industry would be relegated to a minor role.

"Enacting something like 'Medicare for all' would be a transformative change in the size of the federal government," said Charles Blahous, the study's author. Blahous was a senior economic adviser to former President George W. Bush and a public trustee of Social Security and Medicare during the Obama administration.

Responding to the study, Sanders took aim at the Mercatus Center, which receives funding from the conservative Koch brothers. Koch Industries CEO Charles Koch is on the center's board.

(more....)

We have to look at ALL aspects of healthcare, not just isolated parts of it.

[NurseJackie]

9. ...

[Uncle Joe]

14. ...

[ehrnst]

16. Yes, Jacobin, that shining beacon of objective political analysis..

[Uncle Joe]

21. Gothmog's video on post # 15 supports at least one of Jacobin's contentions

[ehrnst]

26. Splitting hairs on one phrase.

I find it fascinating that when I quoted the author of the study (you know, the one that Sanders and AOC are claiming supports Sanders' claim,) on the threat that you are upset about:

“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/

I was told that:

a). The author really couldn't be trusted to come to an accurate conclusion if it differed from Sanders.

b.) All politicians "stretch the truth" even Obama and Hillary, so there, and CNN and factcheck.org just have an agenda to divide Democrats, besides the Democratic party no longer makes Universal Health Care a goal...

c.) Jake Tapper has his own health care and doesn't care about anyone but himself and can't be trusted anymore (even though at the end of the video, he states that CNN is not making any statements on MFA, just on the accuracy of Sanders' claims that the study supported his claims).

I think that the issue is that Sanders has encouraged the branding that He and MFA are one and the same and that has led to the false line of thinking that the MFA is the "only real universal health care plan" and therefor any fact checking or questioning of Sanders' accuracy on any statement at all= being "against universal health care" or "hating Bernie."

[Uncle Joe]

43. Bernie said "that wasn't what the study intended to do but it was in the study"

and Bernie was right it was in the study.

[Gothmog]

76. Not really

[Gothmog]

49. Who is this person?

[lapucelle]

53. The writer for Jacobin appears to lack an editor.

From Politifact:

Charles Blahous said that to come up with that estimate, Mercatus used a relatively generous assumption about how well Sanders’ plan will end up controlling health care costs. It assumes that provider payment will be reduced to Medicare levels, that negotiation with prescription drugmakers will generate significant savings, and that administrative costs will be cut from 13 to 6 percent.

However, in an alternative scenario in which cost-control works less effectively (see Table 4) Mercatus found that over the same 10-year period, national health expenditures would actually increase by $3.252 trillion compared to current law.

So while the number Sanders chose really does appear in the report, he’s cherry-picked the more flattering of two estimates.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/aug/03/bernie-s/did-conservative-study-show-big-savings-bernie-san/

If the Jacobin article were responsibly edited, it might read:

Think for a second about how completely a̶b̶s̶u̶r̶d̶ [reasonable it is that] these three s̶u̶s̶p̶i̶c̶i̶o̶u̶s̶l̶y̶ i̶d̶e̶n̶t̶i̶c̶a̶l̶ a̶r̶e̶ fact-check pieces [reach similar] conclusions.They acknowledge that Sanders and others are right that the Mercatus estimate says there w̶i̶l̶l̶ [may] be $2 trillion in savings.

But then t̶h̶e̶y̶ ̶s̶a̶y̶ ̶S̶a̶n̶d̶e̶r̶s̶ ̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶m̶o̶s̶t̶l̶y̶ ̶l̶y̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶b̶e̶c̶a̶u̶s̶e̶ ̶h̶e̶ ̶d̶o̶e̶s̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶ ̶a̶l̶s̶o̶ ̶t̶a̶l̶k̶ ̶a̶b̶o̶u̶t̶ ̶a̶l̶t̶e̶r̶n̶a̶t̶i̶v̶e̶ ̶s̶c̶o̶r̶e̶s̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶t̶o̶t̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ ̶d̶i̶f̶f̶e̶r̶e̶n̶t̶ ̶p̶l̶a̶n̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶a̶r̶e̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶ ̶h̶i̶s̶ ̶p̶l̶a̶n̶.̶ [the fact checkers note that the claim neglects to acknowledge an alternative figure, which assumes that a Medicare for All plan isn’t as successful in controlling costs as its sponsors hope it will be and which would lead to an increase of almost $3.3 trillion in national health care expenditures, rather than a decline.]

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/08/mercatus-report-bernie-sanders-medicare-for-all

Do people generally think it is suspicious when three fact-check pieces from generally reliable news sources all reach the same conclusion? The Jacobin author does.

[lapucelle]

52. Jacobin? Again?

However, in an alternative scenario in which cost-control works less effectively (see Table 4) Mercatus found that over the same 10-year period, national health expenditures would actually increase by $3.252 trillion compared to current law.

So while the number Sanders chose really does appear in the report, he’s cherry-picked the more flattering of two estimates.

snip=========================================

The $2 trillion figure can be traced back to the Mercatus report. But it is one of two scenarios the report offers, so Sanders’ use of the term "would" is too strong. The alternative figure, which assumes that a Medicare for All plan isn’t as successful in controlling costs as its sponsors hope it will be, would lead to an increase of almost $3.3 trillion in national health care expenditures, not a decline. Independent experts say the alternative scenario of weaker cost control is at least as plausible.

We rate the statement Half True.

[Uncle Joe]

54. Politifact is wrong what Bernie said is true

the report states that Bernie's plan or bill as submitted would save the American People two trillion dollars over ten years.

That was true

Bernie said the two trillion dollars in savings was in the report but that the Koch Brothers didn't intend to support his Medicare for All bill.

That was also true.

[lapucelle]

56. In only one of two possible, equally likely scenarios.

Imagine a doctor saying,

"At this point, the best we can do is speculate that the tumor is either benign or malignant. Both possibilities are equally likely."

Who on earth would go home thinking,

"The doctor said everything is fine."

[ehrnst]

57. I'll believe factcheck.org and/or Politifact over any politician when they disagree.

Unlike Trump supporters and others for whom cult of personality makes them hostile to facts that don't confirm their bias.

Cognitive dissonance is harmful no matter who is experiencing it.

[Uncle Joe]

59. Are they not human as well?

Nearly Three Days Later, Jake Tapper Admits CNN "Fact Check" on Medicare for All Was, Uh, Not Factual

"Having now acknowledged the need for two corrections, he should consider whether he and the other people working on this understand the issue of Medicare for All well enough to appoint themselves as fact checkers."

After nearly three days of constant pressure, clear explanations of basic facts, and bit of healthy shaming, CNN's Jake Tapper on Sunday finally relented to the sheer force of the evidence and admitted that his Medicare for All "fact check"—which aimed to discredit Sen. Bernie Sanders' (I-Vt.) claim that a Koch brothers-funded study showed single-payer would save Americans $2 trillion—was horribly misleading and is in need of a substantial "redo."

(snip)

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/08/20/nearly-three-days-later-jake-tapper-admits-cnn-fact-check-medicare-all-was-uh-not

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1016213912

"Factchecker" pundit, or political leader, they can all make innocent mistakes or deliberately mislead so I tend to believe the facts until other facts come along to dispute or disprove the earlier facts.

[ehrnst]

61. Is Tapper working for factcheck.org and Politifact now?

Nice try.

Still desperate, tho. Keep on attacking that strawman.

And yes, I'll believe the collective factchecking expertise of both those orgs over a politician's claims, because I understand that politicians often have an agenda that might be benefited by skirting or stretching the truth.

Are Bernie and AOC not human enough to make mistakes? And the minute that Bernie admits to ever having made a mistake or tolerates anyone disagreeing with him without calling them corrupt, I'll find him much more credible.

[lapucelle]

58. It was half true because it was only one of two possible scenarios.

However, in an alternative scenario in which cost-control works less effectively (see Table 4) Mercatus found that over the same 10-year period, national health expenditures would actually increase by $3.252 trillion compared to current law.

So while the number Sanders chose really does appear in the report, he’s cherry-picked the more flattering of two estimates.

snip==================================

The $2 trillion figure can be traced back to the Mercatus report. But it is one of two scenarios the report offers, so Sanders’ use of the term "would" is too strong. The alternative figure, which assumes that a Medicare for All plan isn’t as successful in controlling costs as its sponsors hope it will be, would lead to an increase of almost $3.3 trillion in national health care expenditures, not a decline. Independent experts say the alternative scenario of weaker cost control is at least as plausible.

We rate the statement Half True.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/aug/03/bernie-s/did-conservative-study-show-big-savings-bernie-san/

[ehrnst]

74. But according to Jacobin, Politifact is in cahoots with Mercatus to get Bernie!

It's like.... the press is the, what am I looking for.... ENEMY of Bernie, and therefore, the people! Or just too stupid and gullible to actually do real fact checking that wasn't fed to them by Mercatus....

From the article in the OP:

Needless to say, Mercatus was not thrilled that its attempt to torpedo Medicare for All had become one of the leading talking points in its favor, and so it badly wanted a do-over. The preferred theater for their do-over was gullible and biased fact-checkers who they successfully coached into declaring that Bernie Sanders is lying using their inane truth-o-meter and Pinocchio-based measures.

Swap out "Trumpcare" for Medicare for All, and "NPR" for Mercatus, and you have a FoxNews piece.. complete with mustache twirling villains sitting in a newsroom.

[Gothmog]

75. Not in the real world

Again, if sanders can convince people of his claims, I look forward to seeing a model single payer law being adopted in Vermont

[ehrnst]

60. Now that's a statement I would expect to see from a Trump supporter.

That's certainly not a fringe, extreme, desperate attempt to discredit something that shows a favored politician might have made a mistake.

[Uncle Joe]

62. Which statement?

[ehrnst]

64. The title of your OP. (nt)

[Uncle Joe]

65. And the substance of the article refers to the "fact checkers' and backs up it's assertions.

To which Tapper has now come out admitted he was wrong, I believe on two of his assertions.

[ehrnst]

66. I have yet to see factcheck.org or Politifact retract.

And as we have discussed, Tapper works for neither.

I also have yet to see the author of the study retract his statement that Sanders is misrepresenting the conclusions of the study.

And yes, the title of the OP certainly sounds like a Trump supporter who has seen someone post a fact check of one of his tweets.



"Factcheckers are GREAT.... until they factcheck my guy....and don't say that he's right...."

[Uncle Joe]

67. Well the OP is primarily about Tapper but there were other segments

of the media doing the same knee jerk or premeditated misleading.

(snip)

This careful bit of framing and deception by Mercatus initially worked out as planned. They got the Associated Press to write a story with the lede “Sen. Bernie Sanders’ ‘Medicare for all’ plan would boost government health spending by $32.6 trillion over 10 years.” Because of the way the AP wire service works, that means the story showed up on just about every news website in the country: ABC News, Bloomberg, Washington Post, and so on.

But this initial success slipped away from Mercatus because folks like myself quickly noticed that, buried in the report’s tables, the author had actually found that Sanders’s plan would save $2 trillion.

That’s right: the same estimate with the scary $32.6 trillion figure they were promoting to all the journalists in the country also said that the US could insure 30 million more Americans, virtually eliminate out-of-pocket expenses, and cover dental, vision, and hearing care for everyone — all while spending $2 trillion less over the next ten years. After this was pointed out, the coverage of the report changed dramatically, and Bernie Sanders put out a video thanking the Koch brothers for their positive study.

Needless to say, Mercatus was not thrilled that its attempt to torpedo Medicare for All had become one of the leading talking points in its favor, and so it badly wanted a do-over. The preferred theater for their do-over was gullible and biased fact-checkers who they successfully coached into declaring that Bernie Sanders is lying using their inane truth-o-meter and Pinocchio-based measures.

(snip)

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/08/mercatus-report-bernie-sanders-medicare-for-all

[ehrnst]

69. "media doing the same knee jerk or premeditated misleading."

Again, sounds like a Trump supporter who sees someone factchecking a tweet.

Lots of accusations, and not much to back them up to anyone who isn't already eager to have their bias confirmed.

Or a die hard Jacobin reader, on the left, as you have shown.

This careful bit of framing and deception by Mercatus initially worked out as planned. They got the Associated Press to write a story with the lede “Sen. Bernie Sanders’ ‘Medicare for all’ plan would boost government health spending by $32.6 trillion over 10 years.”

Clearly collusion to take down Bernie. Unforgivable.

Needless to say, Mercatus was not thrilled that its attempt to torpedo Medicare for All had become one of the leading talking points in its favor, and so it badly wanted a do-over. The preferred theater for their do-over was gullible and biased fact-checkers who they successfully coached into declaring that Bernie Sanders is lying using their inane truth-o-meter and Pinocchio-based measures.

The mainstream Media is all in against BERNIE!!!! OMG!!!!!! NOT A ONE OF THEM CAN BE TRUSTED!!!!

Seriously? Swap out Bernie with Trump, and you have a FoxNews piece.

[Uncle Joe]

70. This isn't a tweet! The Medicare for All Bill, Mercatus report, Bernie's truthful response,

the fact checkers, the rebuttals and the self-admitted fact check corrections are all a matter of public record.

I take my information from a multitude of sources, including CNN but I take it all with a large grain of salt.

[ehrnst]

71. Fact checking is fact checking, and you posted an article that accuses

all those fact checkers and media of being in it to smear Bernie...bordering on conspiracy theory.

The preferred theater for their do-over was gullible and biased fact-checkers who they successfully coached into declaring that Bernie Sanders is lying using their inane truth-o-meter and Pinocchio-based measures.

Really - that sounds exactly like FoxNews, just swap out Bernie for Trump.



And when it's a politician vs factcheck.org and Politico, I'll take the politician's claim with a much bigger grain of salt.
We defend the free press here, we don't smear it.

[Uncle Joe]

72. Fact checking IS fact checking, that's the point, so we're checking the facts of the fact checkers

what's wrong with that!?

[ehrnst]

73. When you post conspiracy theory worthy, unsubstantiated claims about the free press

then you are not "fact checking" you are simply lashing out at the fact checkers.

That's what's wrong.

Believing FoxNews level paranoia, even if it is on the left, is wrong.

Again - we are supposed to be better than the Trump wingnuts who see the free press at best "incompetent and gullible in the hands of an evil villain, and at worst as "the enemy of the people" which clearly Jacobin does in the posts that you shared.

[Uncle Joe]

78. The fact checkers based their assumptions on a faulty premise

Last edited Tue Aug 21, 2018, 10:19 AM - Edit history (2)

beginning with a lie at worst or misunderstanding at best told by Blahous, that's not a "conspiracy theory" it's a fact (s).

From your own post #26

“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/

Bernie never said that Blahous reached the same overall conclusion as in the inserting of his own alternate reality scenario not based on Medicare for All as is in Bernie's Bill.

1. Bernie did thank the Koch Brothers for sponsoring a study that shows Medicare for All (that's actually Bernie's plan) not Blahous' would save over 2 trillion dollars over a ten year period. Bernie states that he suspects the Koch Brothers didn't intend to do that but that is what is in the study of the Mercatus Center that is significantly funded by the Koch Brothers.

The author of the Mercatus Report attempted to distance his own findings that clearly shows Medicare for All (Bernie's plan as graded) would indeed save the American People two trillion dollars over a ten year period to "Bernie was being disingenuous by claiming that they reached the same overall conclusion" just to change the frame of the argument and some fact checkers ate it up.

Tapper even went a step further by changing Bernie's statement of saving the American People two trillion dollars to the that of the government to "fact check" Bernie and Alexandria.

[ehrnst]

115. Because Jacobin says so?

Because they dare to contradict Sanders?

Why do you think that they all got it so wrong?

Was it "gullibility" - a mass hysteria to discredit Sanders, as you posited before?

And how can you discredit a study while still holding it up as "validating" Sanders?

I don't think that the gullibility is on the part of independent fact checking orgs....

[Uncle Joe]

117. I believe you and I have used many of the same posts over the course of our debates

we just look at them differently.

The post you just responded to is one such post and it has nothing to do with Jacobin so much as common sense, logic, and a good understanding of the English language.

[ehrnst]

118. I think that your citing of that Jacobin article says much about

your POV on "mainstream media" being in it against Bernie.

There isn't really any other way to interpret what was said in that article.

[Uncle Joe]

120. I've cited Sach's analysis on CNN as well but you have yet to respond to his article

stating that Medicare for All could/should save the American People much greater sums of money than the Blahous estimate of 2 trillion dollars over ten years based on Bernie's bill.

[ehrnst]

121. Your very OP concerns the Mercatus study, and the fact checking of Bernie's claims about it.

The gullible, horrible awful, Bernie bashing main stream fact checkers are the topic of this Jacobin piece.

Those awful factcheck.org, Politifact and WAPO "fake news" orgs- perhaps you have forgotten the full content of the piece?

From the article you shared in your OP:

Needless to say, Mercatus was not thrilled that its attempt to torpedo Medicare for All had become one of the leading talking points in its favor, and so it badly wanted a do-over. The preferred theater for their do-over was gullible and biased fact-checkers who they successfully coached into declaring that Bernie Sanders is lying using their inane truth-o-meter and Pinocchio-based measures.

And you want me to think that your judgement on this issue is somehow based in concern for facts?



And still... you have no defense or explanation for how you can continue to discredit the conclusions of a study and it's author, AT THE SAME TIME you defend Sanders citing its conclusions as "supporting his claims."

The best you can do is try desperately to point to "these other studies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

You clearly are now spinning your wheels, logically speaking.

Stick a fork in it, it's done.

[Uncle Joe]

123. I can just re post this because the same answer applies

Bernie was pointing to "An Inconvenient Truth" WITHIN the study because he believed

as do I and I believe most people here at DU that the Koch Brothers; wanted the numbers to be bad in regards to Medicare for All, they don't want it passed.

They didn't want the American People to know Medicare for All using Bernie's bill could/would save the people two+ trillion dollars over ten years, that's specifically what Bernie cited, nothing more.

Even the half-meter fact checkers acknowledge this to be truth; in the report, that Medicare for All would save the American People 2+ trillion dollars over ten years.

The author makes a claim against Bernie that has no merit because Bernie never stated the author's "conclusions" matched or differed from his own but cited an Inconvenient Truth "within the report" and then used sarcasm to thank the Koch Brothers, this no doubt pissed off the right wing economist.

[ehrnst]

124. .....

Copy and paste the same thing all you like. You are desperate to avoid the sad truth - Bernie misrepresented something in an attempt to give himself credibility. M4A is his brand, and he and his fans treat even questioning it a personal attack on him, when it's not.

People secure in their credibility don't need to do that.

See also: Donald Trump.

Stick a fork in this sad, futile attempt at denial and redirection. It's done.

I suggest you employ the "ignore" feature to save yourself some stress, because I'm not someone who simply swallows whatever any particular politician says as gospel.

Facts matter, and smearing reputable fact checkers as "gullible" and "led by the Koch bros" will always get pushback from me.

[lapucelle]

79. What are the "self corrected fact checks"

besides Tapper acknowledging that he said "would save/cost the government" when he should have said "would save/cost Americans"?

One of the problems with using BS's bill as a basis in the Mercatus study (rather than the fully funded HR 676) is the fact that its vagaries lead to two different scenarios concerning costs and savings. The BS bill (S 1804) neglects to include any funding provisions beyond:

"By not later than September 1 of each year, beginning with the year prior to the date on which benefits first become available as described in section 106(a), the Secretary shall establish a national health budget, which specifies the total expenditures to be made for covered health care services under this Act."

The organization Medicare For All (which has been fighting this fight for 15 years) supports Conyers HR 676 as the gold standard medicare for all legislation because it is true single payer universal coverage and its funding provisions are clear and detailed. (And yes, it does account for both positive and negative externalities.)

Here's what the organization has to say:

[S 1804]... was introduced by Senator Bernie Sanders in September 2017 for the 2017-2018 session of the U.S. Congress. It is not an exact equivalent of H.R. 676. U.S. House Resolution 676. It is not even based on H.R. 676 as a starting point.

The universal health care movement needs a U.S. Senator to sponsor a Senate bill that is an equivalent of H.R. 676.

WHAT IS NEEDED. A U.S. Senator who will introduce an equivalent to H.R. 676 into the U.S. Senate, such as during the 115th Congress in 2018 or during the first quarter of 2019 of the 116th Congress (2019-2020).

STATUS. There are no plans to spend time posting more information about [S1804] or the confusion that it creates.

The issue of universal single payer government-funded health care has devolved in some quarters into unproductive grandstanding and a ridiculous fight over "who gets credit". It should be about supporting the best legislative model that is available, HR 676. Hopefully a Democratic senator will begin the work of writing a Senate version of the House bill so it can be introduced in the next session of Congress.

http://www.medicareforall.org/pages/HR676

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/1804/text#toc-id6a446c63a93e4b7bbbaffa1cb6e6e382

http://www.medicareforall.org/pages/S1804

[Uncle Joe]

80. Well there is Kessler at the Washington Post

(snip)

It is not just Tapper who has done this, of course. According to Bernie Sanders’s policy director Warren Gunnels, the Washington Post‘s Glenn Kessler did not contact the Sanders office prior to writing his similar fact check and, when Gunnels later contacted Kessler to complain, Kessler allegedly said that “he has known the author of the Mercatus study for years & basically trusts whatever he says.” Kessler went on to issue three substantive corrections to his fact check, which seems to suggest that perhaps Blahous was not steering him straight.

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/08/bernie-sanders-mercatus-study-medicare-for-all

(snip)

As for Bernie's Medicare for All bill.

By economist Jeffrey Sachs

(CNN)The economics of Medicare for All championed by Sen. Bernie Sanders are actually quite straightforward. Under what advocates call "M4A," health care coverage would expand while total spending on health care -- by companies, individuals and the government -- would decline because of lower costs. More would be paid through the government and less through private insurers.

M4A would reduce health care costs for three reasons. First, Medicare pays hospital and doctors at lower rates than private insurers. Second, drug prices would be lower. And third, there would be administrative savings.

These conclusions are robust. Recently, the libertarian-leaning Mercatus Center published a study with data that bear out these conclusions. Indeed, these sensible conclusions jump out of any straightforward analysis.

(snip)

The Mercatus report fails to emphasize three crucial facts:

First, US health care is not a competitive marketplace. It is rife with monopoly power, enabling the extraordinary markups of drug prices, the extravagant salaries of the top-paid health care providers and the rampant price discrimination exercised by health providers, which charge different prices to different clients depending on the provider's market power vis-à-vis different clienteles. M4A would limit this monopoly power by putting a powerful government payer up against the monopolists.

(snip)

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/04/opinions/medicare-for-all-makes-a-lot-of-sense-sachs/index.html

[ehrnst]

83. Sanders clearly didn't contact Blahous before making his statement on the study.

So really, if that's going to be the standard for getting someone's statement right, Bernie didn't measure up.

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/

And the Post still gives it three Pinocchios....

[lapucelle]

86. I have a feeling that talking points were rolled out based on a superficial reading

before anyone with any expertise did a thorough analysis of the study's findings.

The real shame is that those who spoke so hastily actually played in the Koch's hand by endorsing a study which also presents an equally likely, extremely damaging assessment of the costs.

[ehrnst]

91. I know that it was featured in an email campaign for donations.

Maybe they had a deadline.

Or maybe they knew what the reaction of his most ardent supporters would be to any fact-checking of his claims, so being "almost" accurate would be not only enough for the target donors, but would create a defensive reaction among them when the claims were scrutinized.

Certainly that's along the lines of strategy that Tad Devine is known for, and he currently is working with Sanders.

I would not be surprised at all if Tad Devine had a hand in the campaign.

[Uncle Joe]

94. That's Blahous' opinion NOT based on the requirements of the BILL it's just an

educated opinion on an alternate reality.

If an economist were to grade a bill then he/she should grade the bill and leave the alternate realities to political and policy debate but don't be inserting your own prejudiced spin on something that has doesn't even exist in a half ass attempt at re-framing the issue just because you don't personally like the results of your own study.

(snip)

The missing facts

Vital facts are routinely obscured from the public. Consider the recent Mercatus study. On the one hand, it rightfully and straightforwardly concludes that M4A would provide more health care coverage at lower cost than the status quo, projecting a net reduction in national health expenditures of roughly $2 trillion over a 10-year period (2022-2031), while also enabling increased health care coverage.

(snip)

The Mercatus report fails to emphasize three crucial facts:

First, US health care is not a competitive marketplace. It is rife with monopoly power, enabling the extraordinary markups of drug prices, the extravagant salaries of the top-paid health care providers and the rampant price discrimination exercised by health providers, which charge different prices to different clients depending on the provider's market power vis-à-vis different clienteles.
M4A would limit this monopoly power by putting a powerful government payer up against the monopolists.

Second, US health care prices are sky-high compared with the prices paid in other high-income countries, while US health outcomes are worse. Life expectancy in the United States is not only around five years lower than in the leading countries but has actually been declining in the past two years, in part because of epidemics of depression, suicide and substance abuse.

Third, M4A wouldn't require the United States to plunge into an unknown health care model. Medicare already ensures lower costs than private health care and is popular among the elderly. The health systems of every other high-income country offer other proven models. Par for the course, the Mercatus study doesn't even mention the overwhelming evidence from abroad.

(snip)

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/04/opinions/medicare-for-all-makes-a-lot-of-sense-sachs/index.html

[ehrnst]

105. From Blahous:

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.”

“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.”

In his report, Blahous provided an alternative-scenario estimate, one that assumed instead that payments to health care providers would “remain equal on average to the current-law blend of higher private and lower public reimbursement rates.” Under that scenario, there would be a net increase in health care spending.

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/08/the-cost-of-medicare-for-all/

Any speculation that Sanders has is also based on "an alternate reality." And that alternate reality has been evaluated and found to be less than likely by politically nuetral policy analysts.

[Uncle Joe]

111. Still no answer to Jeffrey Sachs' criticism of Blahous' study.

(snip)


The Mercatus report fails to emphasize three crucial facts:

First, US health care is not a competitive marketplace. It is rife with monopoly power, enabling the extraordinary markups of drug prices, the extravagant salaries of the top-paid health care providers and the rampant price discrimination exercised by health providers, which charge different prices to different clients depending on the provider's market power vis-à-vis different clienteles. M4A would limit this monopoly power by putting a powerful government payer up against the monopolists.

Second, US health care prices are sky-high compared with the prices paid in other high-income countries, while US health outcomes are worse. Life expectancy in the United States is not only around five years lower than in the leading countries but has actually been declining in the past two years, in part because of epidemics of depression, suicide and substance abuse.

Third, M4A wouldn't require the United States to plunge into an unknown health care model. Medicare already ensures lower costs than private health care and is popular among the elderly. The health systems of every other high-income country offer other proven models. Par for the course, the Mercatus study doesn't even mention the overwhelming evidence from abroad.

By looking more carefully abroad we would learn that M4A can save far more than $2 trillion over 10 years. The savings could actually approach $1 trillion per year, given that the United States would save even more than that amount per year were it to pay the same share of gross domestic product on health care as does Canada with its single-payer system (10.4% of GDP in Canada, compared with 17.1% in the United States, for 2017). Even with that lower rate of spending, Canada achieves a higher proportion of health care coverage and a longer life expectancy (81.9 years, compared with 78.6 years in the United States, for 2017).

(snip)

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/04/opinions/medicare-for-all-makes-a-lot-of-sense-sachs/index.html

I wonder why Blahous couldn't bring himself to propose a "better than expected" third scenario outcome?

It seems from Sach's criticism of the Mercatus study there is/was certainly room for such.

I'm wondering if the "fact checkers" will jump on Bernie for "cherry picking" by not citing Sach's analysis with the potential for a an even greater trillion dollars in savings every year?

[ehrnst]

113. Still no answer to how the author of the study is not credible enough to understand

the data, not credible enough to create "alternative realities" from the data that match Sanders', yet somehow this study"validates" Sanders' claims.

Not holding my breath.

Blahous did the study, he states that Sanders is misrepresenting the conclusions of his study, and Factcheck.org, Politifact and WAPO confirmed this.

"Alternate realities" are not the issue. Sanders misrepresenting the conclusions of this study, in this reality, is.

And Sanders did misrepresent it, according to independent fact checkers who actually checked with the author of the study to see if Sanders' claims about the study conclusion were valid.

By doing so, he got you and others to jump to his defense when his claims concerning the conclusions of the study were examined by those independent and reputable parties, and bend over backwards to try to "prove" why Factcheck.org, Politifact, WAPO somehow were "gullible" and "led by the nose by the Koch brothers," in a combined effort to smear Bernie.

He also got out a fundraising email making it the centerpiece of his ask, just as the fact checkers were "attacking him" - well, according to a very emotional piece in Jacobin. Brilliant piece of marketing.

Classic Tad Devine strategy.

[lapucelle]

84. Kessler still gives BS's claim 3 Pinnochios.

The article was updated, but Kessler's rating stands.

The Pinocchio Test

We don’t intend to pick on Gillum, who appears to have picked up a talking point that is circulating among Democrats. But we do want to lay down a marker because this goes too far.

All too often, politicians mischaracterize conclusions that are contained in academic or think tank studies. At the Fact Checker, we rely heavily on how a study’s author says the data should be presented. In this case, it’s clear that Blahous bent over backward to accept Sanders’s assumptions, only to find they did not add up. Democrats cannot seize on one cherry-picked fact without acknowledging the broader implications of Blahous’s research.

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/?utm_term=.0e8128869709

[ehrnst]

85. Stop it with the FACTS, will you??

[lapucelle]

87. ...

[Uncle Joe]

88. Why use the word "cherry picked" when citing the results of study of the actual BILL.

Why should any political leader cite a study by a natural antagonist that has nothing do with the actual BILL aka; Medicare for All?

Blahous and the Koch Brothers weren't happy with his own results so they created an alternate reality scenario NOT based on the actual BILL but on the author's prejudiced presumptions as to what could or could not be accomplished in regards to implementing Medicare for All.

So why should Bernie or anyone else cite that as it's not based on reality?

[ehrnst]

89. "So why should Bernie or anyone else cite that as it's not based on reality? "

Why should Bernie or anyone else cite a study, if the data, conclusions, author or the funders of the study are not trustworthy - or "not based on reality" as being competent enough evidence to support his claims?

No one who is complaining about Politifact, Factcheck.org or WAPO's findings seems to be able to answer that....

[lapucelle]

93. A common sense example of what BS did in his big announcement

would be the following:

A high school parent asks the basketball coach if his son Joe will make the team. Coach Smith, not knowing what the outcome will be, tells him, "Either Joe will make the team or Joe won't make the team. I don't know at this point."

The high school parent excitedly posts on social media, "Coach Smith said Joe will make the team! Thank you Coach Smith!"

[ehrnst]

95. Bingo. (nt)

[Uncle Joe]

97. More like this Blahous example of his report.

A high school parent asks the basketball coach if his son Joe will make the team. Coach Smith, not knowing what the outcome will be, tells him, "Joe could make the team" but if Joe gains a hundred and fifty pounds, he can't"

The high school parent excitedly posts on social media, "Coach Smith said Joe will make the team! Thank you Coach Smith!"

Coach Smith and coach Smith backers, Joe can't join the team because he might gain 150 pounds in some alternate reality and the parent was just cherry picking when he stated that I said Joe could join the team.

[ehrnst]

102. No, that's really stretching it.

But you've bent over backwards thus far to shine the study that you claim didn't come up with enough scenarios to validate Bernie's numbers, as somehow proving that Bernie's numbers are validated by said study, so I'm not surprised.

[Uncle Joe]

96. There were two aspects of this report one pertaining to the ACTUAL bill which reflects savings of

two trillion dollars over 10 years and the other based on an alternate reality not based on the bill but being more of an educated guess by the author on a hypothetical situation which has no basis from any current pending legislation.

[ehrnst]

103. "based on an alternate reality not based on the bill"

At this point, MFA itself is an alternate reality, and will remain so for the foreseeable future.

[Uncle Joe]

108. There are KNOWN aspects of the bill to which Blahous chose to ignore in his second scenario

aka: alternate reality.

[ehrnst]

109. Not very many known aspects of the funding mechanism...

Which is why there are so many "extrapolations."

Blahous and others have done the work that Sanders has not - because the bill as written doesn't flesh out the details adequately.

This allows Sanders to make all kinds of claims to people concerning what his bill will do for everyone, because he knows it won't be reality for the foreseeable future.

When policy experts/groups do analyze what is indeed written - including those who are non-partisan - they also say that the costs are underestimated, and the timeframe on implementation too fast, and will cause more disruption to the health care delivery system than he states.

Since his brand and popularity are tied up with M4A, he is motivated to fight any analysis that doesn't support his promises, and in this case, even to find support where it clearly states that it doesn't support his claims.

The donor email that he sent made it a centerpiece of his ask. He is certainly not going to admit that he may have been wrong, even if admitting a mistake is something he would do.

[Uncle Joe]

112. Provider payment rates in Sanders's plan are not "assumptions"

They are a major part of the study as cited by the author


From the OP

The first is that 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 the provider payment rates are not assumptions; rather, 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. Any score that replaces those rates with some other set of rates is straightforwardly not a score of Sanders’s plan. End of discussion.

As for Bernie's plan

The economics of Medicare for All championed by Sen. Bernie Sanders are actually quite straightforward. Under what advocates call "M4A," health care coverage would expand while total spending on health care -- by companies, individuals and the government -- would decline because of lower costs. More would be paid through the government and less through private insurers.

M4A would reduce health care costs for three reasons. First, Medicare pays hospital and doctors at lower rates than private insurers. Second, drug prices would be lower. And third, there would be administrative savings.

These conclusions are robust. Recently, the libertarian-leaning Mercatus Center published a study with data that bear out these conclusions. Indeed, these sensible conclusions jump out of any straightforward analysis.

M4A would seem to be an unbeatable approach. And indeed it is -- almost. It's basically the solution adopted by Canada, the countries of Western Europe, Japan, Australia and New Zealand.

(snip)


https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/04/opinions/medicare-for-all-makes-a-lot-of-sense-sachs/index.html

[ehrnst]

114. This does not address the fact that Sanders did not accurately represent

conclusions of the study as per the author.

You keep trying to veer away from that....

And you keep avoiding answering how you can keep trying to discredit the author of a study, and its funders, while at the same time defending Bernie's holding the study up as evidence that validates his claims.

But hey - you are very energized to defend Sanders, and that certainly was the goal of his fundraising email making this study "confirming his claims" the main part of the ask.

And there was that article in Jacobin that unearthed the "gullible mainstream media" who "did the Koch Bros bidding" in "smearing Bernie," which was swallowed faster than a Sarah Huckabee Sanders "explanation" of a Trump misrepresentation.

Right here on DU, even.

[lapucelle]

90. Because only one of two possibilities was acknowleged.

The BS claim ignores the study's finding that a second unfavorable cost outcome is equally likely. The idiomatic expression "cherry pick" is perfectly on point because it is exactly what was done.

cherry-pick (verb)
selectively choose the most beneficial items from what is available.

cherry-pick (verb)
to select (only what one considers to be best or most desirable, profitable, etc.) from a number of options

[ehrnst]

92. As the author said, Sanders chose a number presented as "unlikely" according to the study.

But I still don't understand how some people here can bend themselves into pretzels discredit the study and the author (not to mention Politifact and factcheck.org) - and still somehow defend and support Sanders' using the study to support his own claims about MFA.

[Uncle Joe]

99. Bernie chose the number from the grading of his actual bill and what about this?

I wonder why it never occurred to Blahous the author of the report to post a better than expected outcome, a third scenario?

(snip)


The Mercatus report fails to emphasize three crucial facts:

First, US health care is not a competitive marketplace. It is rife with monopoly power, enabling the extraordinary markups of drug prices, the extravagant salaries of the top-paid health care providers and the rampant price discrimination exercised by health providers, which charge different prices to different clients depending on the provider's market power vis-à-vis different clienteles. M4A would limit this monopoly power by putting a powerful government payer up against the monopolists.

Second, US health care prices are sky-high compared with the prices paid in other high-income countries, while US health outcomes are worse. Life expectancy in the United States is not only around five years lower than in the leading countries but has actually been declining in the past two years, in part because of epidemics of depression, suicide and substance abuse.

Third, M4A wouldn't require the United States to plunge into an unknown health care model. Medicare already ensures lower costs than private health care and is popular among the elderly. The health systems of every other high-income country offer other proven models. Par for the course, the Mercatus study doesn't even mention the overwhelming evidence from abroad.

By looking more carefully abroad we would learn that M4A can save far more than $2 trillion over 10 years. The savings could actually approach $1 trillion per year, given that the United States would save even more than that amount per year were it to pay the same share of gross domestic product on health care as does Canada with its single-payer system (10.4% of GDP in Canada, compared with 17.1% in the United States, for 2017). Even with that lower rate of spending, Canada achieves a higher proportion of health care coverage and a longer life expectancy (81.9 years, compared with 78.6 years in the United States, for 2017).

(snip)


https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/04/opinions/medicare-for-all-makes-a-lot-of-sense-sachs/index.html

[ehrnst]

100. So you don't think that he understood the data in his study?

But the study is totally somehow nontheless credible support for Bernie's numbers...

[Uncle Joe]

106. I just presented evidence from economist Jeffrey Sachs stating of at least three major dynamics not

considered in Blahous' study, and that Sachs believes the savings from implementing Medicare for All could be significantly greater than 2 trillion over ten years.

No response to that?

[ehrnst]

110. And I presented to you Blahous' statement on the conclusions that were not supported by his study.

And still no explanation as to why the study is more credible than it's author, and it authors' claims - so much so that Bernie is "validated" by that study, while the author of it -as well as the purported funders of it, are considered non-credible.

[Uncle Joe]

116. Blahous' study is not out of line with some mainstream economists

Last edited Tue Aug 21, 2018, 03:36 PM - Edit history (1)

insofar as the numbers are concerned but as cited by Sachs the former does miss three major dynamics in his analysis.

I believe he, as do many economists in many cases omit a few other less visible dynamics as well in regards to sociological/economic gains or savings in regards to Medicare for All.

The section regarding the actual savings of two trillion dollars over ten years to the American People is literally as close as possible based on Bernie's bill whether you agree with the numbers or not.

I believe as Sachs that the savings could be greater.

There are problems I have with how the report was "marketed" but that's relatively minor.

The main issue I have with Blahous purportedly claiming to be doing a "study" cost/savings analysis of Medicare for All finding that based on the actual bill not liking the results of that saving two trillion dollars over a ten year period only to subvert that real based analysis with a binary choice of that or something worse that the author dreamed up.

And then blaming Bernie for rightfully citing the parts of the study that actually pertained to his bill.

Why should Bernie be judged for not citing the author's total summation under a scenario NOT tied to Bernie's bill?

[ehrnst]

119. The main issue you have is that he did an analysis "based on the actual bill"

OK...

And then blaming Bernie for rightfully citing the parts of the study that actually pertained to his bill.

He cited conclusions made by the author of the study, which as we have seen, the author states are not correct.

Why should Bernie be judged for not citing the author's total summation under a scenario NOT tied to Bernie's bill?

Why should Bernie be judged as accurately representing the author's conclusions in the study when the author says that Bernie did not?

I believe as Sachs that the savings could be greater.

Again - what does this have to do with Bernie misrepresenting Blahous? You are trying once again to derail the topic - which is that Bernie misrepresented the conclusions of Blahous concerning Blahous' study of his bill as supporting his assertions.

And you have still not explained how one can discredit a study, and the author's conclusions, and the study's funders, yet hold that study up as credibly validating Bernie's own conclusions... which makes no sense, especially in light of the author directly refuting Sanders' version of the author's conclusions.

[Uncle Joe]

122. Bernie was pointing to "An Inconvenient Truth" WITHIN the study because he believed

as do I and I believe most people here at DU that the Koch Brothers; wanted the numbers to be bad in regards to Medicare for All, they don't want it passed.

They didn't want the American People to know Medicare for All using Bernie's bill could/would save the people two+ trillion dollars over ten years, that's specifically what Bernie cited, nothing more.

Even the half-meter fact checkers acknowledge this to be truth; in the report, that Medicare for All would save the American People 2+ trillion dollars over ten years.

The author makes a claim against Bernie that has no merit because Bernie never stated the author's "conclusions" matched or differed from his own but cited an Inconvenient Truth "within the report" and then used sarcasm to thank the Koch Brothers, this no doubt pissed off the right wing economist.

[Uncle Joe]

98. The only possibility based in the real world was the analysis of the actual BILL not

a hypothetical scenario having no grounds based in reality just because the author didn't like the results of the real world report.

Believing there are/were only two possibilities leads us to framing traps.

I wonder why it never occurred to Blahous the author of the report to post a better than expected outcome, a third scenario?

(snip)


The Mercatus report fails to emphasize three crucial facts:

First, US health care is not a competitive marketplace. It is rife with monopoly power, enabling the extraordinary markups of drug prices, the extravagant salaries of the top-paid health care providers and the rampant price discrimination exercised by health providers, which charge different prices to different clients depending on the provider's market power vis-à-vis different clienteles. M4A would limit this monopoly power by putting a powerful government payer up against the monopolists.

Second, US health care prices are sky-high compared with the prices paid in other high-income countries, while US health outcomes are worse. Life expectancy in the United States is not only around five years lower than in the leading countries but has actually been declining in the past two years, in part because of epidemics of depression, suicide and substance abuse.

Third, M4A wouldn't require the United States to plunge into an unknown health care model. Medicare already ensures lower costs than private health care and is popular among the elderly. The health systems of every other high-income country offer other proven models. Par for the course, the Mercatus study doesn't even mention the overwhelming evidence from abroad.

By looking more carefully abroad we would learn that M4A can save far more than $2 trillion over 10 years. The savings could actually approach $1 trillion per year, given that the United States would save even more than that amount per year were it to pay the same share of gross domestic product on health care as does Canada with its single-payer system (10.4% of GDP in Canada, compared with 17.1% in the United States, for 2017). Even with that lower rate of spending, Canada achieves a higher proportion of health care coverage and a longer life expectancy (81.9 years, compared with 78.6 years in the United States, for 2017).

(snip)


https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/04/opinions/medicare-for-all-makes-a-lot-of-sense-sachs/index.html

[ehrnst]

101. So he's not "competent enough" to come up with a scenario that proves Bernie's numbers...

but his study is totally credible enough to support Bernie's scenario...

[lapucelle]

104. Because the BS bill has no funding provisions

the study discussed two possible outcomes that are equally likely.

In the real world, funding details are important. That's why serious people include them in well-crafted legislation. That's why Conyers's HR 676 is the bill that medicare for all advocates have been fighting for for 15 years.

How is the BS bill S 1804 going to be funded? Here's what the bill itself has to say:



The Mercatus study uses the BS bill as it was written (making the most favorable assumptions possible) as a basis for it's cost projections. (The bill in no way addresses funding.) The BS bill was not carefully crafted to answer a very important question: "How are we going to pay for this?" Because the BS bill does not address funding, different scenarios are possible. The fault lies with the bill, not with the study.

HR 676 is fully funded. It's a better bill. We need a senate version.

[ehrnst]

107. Indeed. Bernie's own projections are not as fleshed out, and he is not a policy analyst.

He is also known for not tolerating any dissent, nor taking counsel or helpful suggestions kindly from anyone other than his close advisors.

He knows that MFA isn't going to happen anytime soon. That and keeping it vague certainly allows him to promise many things, and say "I'm not going to speculate about that" when asked a hard question.

I often thought of that when reading Jill Stein's "proposals."

One can promise day trips to the moon if one knows that one can blame not having a rocket to get there on someone else.

However, if someone does an analyis of the technnology currently capable, and it doesn't show that a day trip to the moon is possible, that throws a big wrench in the credibility of the one promising the moon.

And of course they'll fight back, and say, "It's completely possible to get to the moon and back in one day! We just have to want it badly enough! We just need the political will to build that rocket!! Those who own theme parks here don't want you to go to the moon! Big theme park is the only thing keeping YOU from exploring our own moon! They are the ones lying to you!!!" Please donate to my campaign, and we will GET there in a day!"

[Uncle Joe]

126. The study was purely binary, Bernie has wisely proposed a whole range of funding options and

I have no doubt he is open to considering other ideas as well.

In this, he has strengthened support for his Medicare for All bill.

OPTIONS TO FINANCE MEDICARE FOR ALL

(snip)

Options to Save Families and Businesses on Health Care Expenses

7.5 percent income-based premium paid by employers
Revenue raised: $3.9 trillion over ten years.
Businesses would save over $9,000 in health care costs for the average employee under this
option

(snip)

4 percent income-based premium paid by households
Revenue raised: $3.5 trillion over ten years.
The typical middle class family would save over $4,400 under this plan.

(snip)

Options to Make the Wealthy Pay Their Fair Share
Make the Personal Income Tax More Progressive
Revenue raised: $1.8 trillion over ten years

(snip)

Make the Estate Tax More Progressive
Revenue raised: $249 billion over ten years.

(snip)

Establish a Wealth Tax on the Top 0.1 percent
Revenue raised: $1.3 trillion over ten years.

(snip)

Close the Gingrich-Edwards Loophole and Create Parity for Wealthy Business Owners
Revenue raised: $247 billion over ten years.

(snip)

Options to Make Wall Street and Large, Profitable Corporation Pay Their Fair Share
Impose a one-time tax on currently held offshore profits
Revenue raised: $767 billion over ten years.

(snip)

Impose a Fee on Large Financial Institutions
Revenue raised: $117 billion over ten years.

(snip)

Repeal Corporate Accounting Gimmicks
Revenue raised: $112 billion ten years.

(snip)

https://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/options-to-finance-medicare-for-all?inline=file

As for John Conyers beliefs or support I will let his words speak.

For the last 13 years, I have introduced Medicare for All legislation that would guarantee health care as a right for all Americans. I have persisted despite the numerous politicians and commentators who condemned the idea as "unrealistic" or worse, because I have a moral conviction that health care should be a basic right, and that no American should face bankruptcy or death because they fall ill. Today, fresh off the latest failed Republican attempt to slash health care benefits, Medicare for All is a broadly popular proposal whose time has come.

Early on, our co-sponsors were steady, but nothing to brag about. Over the years, and especially recently, our numbers have improved. Today, 120 Members of Congress -- over 60 percent of the Democratic delegation -- have signed on in support of my bill. My friend and colleague, Senator Bernie Sanders, introduced a Senate version of my bill that has 17 co-sponsors, including big names like Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Al Franken, Kirsten Gillibrand and Cory Booker. Even one of the most conservative Democrats in the Senate, Joe Manchin, has expressed interest in supporting the bill.

My support for Medicare for All is rooted in both moral and fiscal arguments.

So, now I will go through common arguments against Medicare for All, and clarify why they're wrong.

(snip)

https://impact.vice.com/en_us/article/yw3kmy/congressman-john-conyers-on-why-now-is-the-time-for-medicare-for-all

[ck4829]

125. Kick