What the "18 trillion in debt" attack forgot:

[pat_k]

The Urban-Brookings analysis forgot at least one thing -- a major thing: expected growth in economic output expected as a result of such a bold, and sustained, plan for public investment.

It is an accepted principle of economics that such investment spurs growth. Furthermore, depending on the type of investment, each dollar invested is associated with an estimated "multiplier" (you get more bang for certain kinds of bucks).

So, why did Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center apparently fail to account for the "stimulus" effect?

You've got to wonder.

For details and references about an analysis that applies the standard models of associated growth, see:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511935929

[Jackie Wilson Said]

1. And it forgot those areas where Bernie plans on cutting spending to use it for this.

[w4rma]

2. The Urban Institute’s Attack On Single Payer: Ridiculous Assumptions Yield Ridiculous Estimates

1. Administrative savings, Part 1: … Hence a more realistic estimate would assume that insurance overhead would drop to Canada’s level of about 1.8 percent. Cutting insurance overhead to 2 percent (rather than the 6 percent that Holahan projects) would save an additional $1.7 trillion over the next 10 years.

2. Administrative savings, Part 2: Holahan completely ignores the huge savings on hospital administration and doctors’ billing under a streamlined single-payer system. Every serious analyst of single-payer reform has acknowledged these savings,
…
3. Drug costs:
…
Reducing drug prices to the levels currently paid by European nations would save at least $1.1 trillion more than Holahan posits over 10 years.

4. Utilization of care:
…
Doctors are already working 53 hours per week, and experience from past reforms tells us that they won’t increase their hours, nor will they see many more patients per hour.

Instead of a huge surge in utilization, more realistic projections would assume that doctors and hospitals would reduce the amount of unnecessary care they’re now delivering in order to deliver needed care to those who are currently not getting what they need. That’s what happened in Canada.
…
5. Holahan’s argument that the Sanders plan would cause a huge disruption of health care: This argument mirrors scare tactics used by Medicare’s opponents in 1963. Back then, there were claims that doctors would boycott Medicare, and Wall Street Journal headlines warned of a “Patient Pileup,” as “flocks of Medicare beneficiaries ... suddenly clog the nation’s 7,200 hospitals.” Nothing like that ever happened, nor did it happen when Taiwan implemented single payer more recently. And there’s no reason to think it would happen here.

Moreover, surveys show that most doctors would welcome national health insurance,
…
In summary, Holahan grossly underestimates the administrative savings under single payer; projects increases in the number of doctor visits and hospitalizations that far exceed the capacity of doctors and hospitals to provide this added care; and posits that our country would continue to pay much more for drugs and medical equipment than people in every other nation with national health insurance.

Rather than increasing national health spending, as Holahan claims, Sanders’ plan (and the plan proposed by Physicians for a National Health Program) would almost certainly decrease total health spending over the next 10 years.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-himmelstein/the-urban-institutes-attack-on-single-payer-ridiculous-assumptions-yield-ridiculous-estimates_b_9876640.html

[pat_k]

4. Great reference. Thanks!

[RiverLover]

3. No, the only thing that matters is skyrocketing profits for insurance companies (banks).

Can't have anything mess with The Profits.

[Raster]

5. Senator Bernie Sanders is NOT the preferred candidate...

...of the Lords of Money, or the Merchants of Death. He does not hang out with war criminals, nor has he made multi-millions giving "speeches" to Wall Street.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

6. It must be said that those two organizations are not exactly imparital parties.

The Urban Institute is said to receive funding from government contracts, foundations and private donors. No guarantee of impartiality.

The Tax Policy Center was established by "tax specialists" who served in the Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton administrations. Almost a guarantee against impartiality in this primary.