Nearly Three Days Later, Jake Tapper Admits CNN "Fact Check" on Medicare for All Was, Uh,

[Uncle Joe]

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

[lagomorph777]

1. Even the Koch study shows Medicare for All makes fiscal sense.

Sorry Jake.

[brush]

2. Does Medicare for All pay the full cost or only 80% like actual Medicare?

Right now Medicare recipients pay the remaining 20%.

In single payer plans in other countries the plan pays the whole bill, right?

Does anyone have the answer to who pays the remaining 20%?

[lagomorph777]

3. Well, you could either extend the Supplement plans to all,

or get rid of the privatized Supplements and spend the subsidy instead on more efficient direct coverage.

[brush]

6. Just wondering if the Medicare for All plan deals with this not insignificant detail.

Hospital bills can easily top 100k and 20% of that is 20k. Not many have that amount just laying around. This certainly shouldn't be overlooked.

[Uncle Joe]

10. The plan covers it. n/t

[Uncle Joe]

4. It does if they go by Bernie's PLAN but their alternative reality vision didn't, of course

they never presented a third alternative reality vision of what if reality exceeded Bernie's results.

As in secondary effects ie: medical bankruptcies, stress and strain on families, broken marriages and the sociological/economic ripple effects from all that.

[Judi Lynn]

5. Delightful! What a shock, right? Thank you, Uncle Joe. Rec. n/t

[Uncle Joe]

7. Thank you Judi Lynn n/t

[marble falls]

8. All the other first world does it, why is the richest country in the world unable to "afford it?"

[Hoyt]

9. $200 B savings a year is worth pursuing, but that ain't saving us much - 6% of what we are spending

now for healthcare.

That's worth pursuing and supposedly -- assuming the study is valid -- would yield coverage for everyone. It's worth doing -- in fact, it's the moral thing to do -- but anyone who thinks it will save a lot of money, is wrong. It will be good for the poor and possibly the lower middle class, but everyone else will likely pay more. For that, we all get comfort knowing we and our family will have coverage, and so will many people who only get a bit of care when they are really sick.

[Uncle Joe]

11. I agree in part Hoyt, the savings is just the frosting on the cake.

However I would wager that economic projections of cost and savings for implementing Medicare for All are most likely missing many positive secondary sociological and economic side benefits, ie; the cost of hundreds of thousands of medical bankruptcies every year, the cost of stressed out families and broken marriages and how do those dynamics affect education or the lack thereof, depression, crime, suicide?

Having said that I believe the common sense, logic and moral reasons for enacting Medicare for All are preeminent.

The only part I differ with you is in I believe the savings will go a little farther up the food chain that you.

I expect that if we Americans put our mind to it we can become most competitive again in World Health statistics.

[Hoyt]

15. Good points. No one should fear medical bankruptcy, loss of coverage, etc.

I would love to see us commit to an affordable system, even if providers and healthcare companies take a hit. I think people/patients will have to be part of that commitment too.

[Autumn]

12. Thank you for this Uncle Joe

[Uncle Joe]

13. Thank you Autumn.

[Autumn]

14. Thank you for being here.

[Duppers]

16. Thank you, Uncle Joe.

K&R

[Uncle Joe]

17. Thank you Duppers

[progressoid]

18. Well, I guess it's a good thing they copped to their mistake?

[Uncle Joe]

19. Yes but that was just one or two mistakes copped too, many are still operating on a faulty premise

beginning with a lie at worst or misunderstanding at best told by Blahous.

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.

[progressoid]

20. Yep.

Unfortunately, the damage has been done.