Bernie Sanders claims "every study out there" say medicare for all will save money -

[George II]

Full headline from Newsweek (all caps, sorry), and more than 4 paragraphs posted to retain context (they're all one sentences anyway)

BERNIE SANDERS CLAIMS 'EVERY STUDY OUT THERE' SAYS MEDICARE FOR ALL WILL SAVE MONEY—BUT THESE STUDIES DON'T

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders is facing scrutiny after making a sweeping claim during Tuesday's Democratic primary debate in Charleston, South Carolina, that "every study" has shown a single-payer "Medicare for All" system will save taxpayers money.

Promoting his signature Medicare for All plan, Sanders said at one point during the debate that "every study out there, conservative or progressive, says: 'Medicare for All' will save money."

While it is true that some studies have suggested that the plan could cost less than the current health care system in the U.S., other studies have found that Medicare for All would only increase spending.

Sanders appeared to embrace one particular study during the debate: a recent study published in medical journal The Lancet, which determined that his plan could cost $450 billion less in one year than the current framework.

The Lancet paper estimates that the costs for Medicare for All could come to $17 trillion over 10 years, a significantly lower amount compared to the roughly $30 to $40 trillion other studies have estimated the plan might cost the U.S. over a decade.

However, critics have been quick to dismiss that study, with health economists warning that its findings rely on unrealistic assumptions to arrive at that number.

"The assumptions are unrealistic," Gerard Anderson, a health economist at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore recently told Kaiser Health News.

Noting that the study claims hospitals would spend less money on overhead costs with a single insurance plan, Anderson said the research ignores all the other costs that they would need to cover, including staffing electronic health records.

https://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-claims-every-study-out-there-says-medicare-all-will-save-money-1489149

[emmaverybo]

3. It will mean higher taxes for all who pay taxes. Other countries with universal tax middle/working

class to help afford benefits.

Problem is this is an election year. Raising taxes on middle earners is a great way to get Trump
elected. And wealth tax could be litigated for years.

[emmaverybo]

7. Congress. But maybe could be done by executive order. We won't have a bloody revolution in

this country. Maybe strikes.

[ehrnst]

25. Only a failed political leader would require a revolution to enact their policies.

[Progressive2020]

8. It Is A Net Savings

Taxes go up incrementally, but costs go down way more than the tax increase. So, big net savings per person and per household. It is pretty simple arithmetic.

[evertonfc]

2. Why argue over a plan that is fantasy

There isn't going to be M4A, Bernie or no Bernie. Only 14 Democrats in Senate support it. It's crazy so much time is spent on a moot point.

[DanieRains]

26. We Can't Have What Other Advanced Nations Have - Affordable Healthcare

Corporations and billionaires are in control here.

Get sick?

Just shut up and go die somewhere. After you go bankrupt of course.

No way your death could possibly cost one penny to the 1% who are in control.

Revolution?

Meh.....

[Progressive2020]

5. That Lancet Study

Was done partly at Yale, I think. Lancet is legit, one of the leading health journals. I guarantee you that there are biased studies out there funded by Health Insurance Companies, and some researchers that are in the pocket of Big Pharma and Private Health Insurance. They did the same with Tobacco back in the day, and they have climate deniers too. The health sector is no different. Some researchers are bought and paid for.

I will stick with legit studies from major scientific journals. Medicare For All knocks costs way down. They cut out the profit motive and massive amounts of administrative costs and overhead. Until I see definitive studies contrary to these conclusions, I will stick with a study done at Yale and published in the Lancet.

[George II]

12. Wrong. Insurance companies make between 3% and 5%.

[George II]

15. I didn't prove your point but whatever.

[dansolo]

20. You are wrong. Look it up.

The 80/20 rule, which I assume you are referring to, means that health insurance companies are required to spend at least 80% of their revenue towards care. The remaining 20% can be applied to other costs, like administrative costs. It is not profit, and you should stop repeating that lie.

[Blue_true]

14. If only things were that simple. They AREN'T!!!!!!! nt

[Blue_true]

17. One of the things that caused Obamacare to cost more than planned

was when sick people that couldn't afford insurance finally got it through subsidies, they flooded the system. Bernie's pkan assumes that sick people who are now not insured are simply going to seek out medical care in some smooth way. If, assuming that Bernie can get MFA passed (a doubtful proposition since he is pissing off many of the people that he will need to pass it), most of the initial rush will be sick people, that will balloon costs well past Bernie's rosy view (I use view because he has steadfast refused to give a cost for the initiative). You can call people selfish if you want to, the fact is that people who have good healthcare now will mostly vote against the uncertainty of a poorly defined vision, that will likely re-elect Trump.

[DanieRains]

27. Tax The Things That Make People Sick

Bingo.

Makes too much sense.

[Blue_true]

30. It makes sense in some cases, no sense in others.

The biggest issue in my area of the country is obesity. Soda pop already is taxed as a non-food item, as is things like ice cream. But people are over-eating basic foodstuffs like pasta, chicken, beef, pork - we can't get into taxing basic food, that would be disastrous for anyone that proposes such a route.

[ehrnst]

22. ....

[dansolo]

21. The study Is flawed, and biased

This is a very good article pointing out the flaws of this study. It also points out that the lead author on this study, Alison Galvani, disclosed in the paper that she’s been an unpaid adviser to Sanders’s Senate office. People are trying to suggest that the study was done by an independant, objective person, when in reality, it was written by one of his advisors.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/2/26/21153775/democratic-debate-bernie-sanders-medicare-for-all-yale-study

[Happy Hoosier]

24. But knocks costs down for whom?

Something I wan to see is not just a study about effects on total costs. I think we all agree that total costs will go down.

What I want to see is what the effect on me as an individual is. This like employer contribution recovery are vital to that. My employer currently pays over $17,000/yr for my health insurance. How is that recovered?

[Cha]

6. KR!

[Cha]

18. K

[David__77]

19. That's fine. I think it makes sense to increase health care spending.

There are seriously underserved populations. Time for a people’s Marshall Plan and a new social compact.

[NurseJackie]

23. Well, if NOT "every study" then why does he SAY "every study"??? Isn't that dishonest?

I'm not calling him a liar, but the candidate that I end up supporting will be someone who has more integrity than to say things that are demonstrably false... and so easily disproved. I guess I just have higher standards because I think it's important for whoever leads our nation to be someone who his honest with us. I think we can all agree on that, right? Honesty is important? Right?

[Callado119]

28. What a liar...he would get crushed in a general even if there's a recession...

[Gothmog]

29. Politifact rates sanders' latest claim from the #DemDebate "mostly false"

Link to tweet

Defending his signature health plan — a single-payer system known "Medicare for All" that would move all Americans to government-funded coverage — Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders argued that the massive health care expansion would actually save the system hundreds of billions of dollars.

Sanders’ figures come from a study published Feb. 15 in The Lancet, a British medical journal.....

Our ruling
Sanders said a recent study suggested Medicare for All would save $450 billion annually and saves 68,000 lives.

That study does exist. And it cites some evidence. But many of its assumptions are flawed, and experts uniformly told us it overestimates the potential savings. It cherry-picks data in calculating mortality effects.

This statement has some truth, but ignores context that would create a dramatically different impression. We rate it Mostly False.