Factcheck.org responds to accusations in a tweetstorm from Senator Sanders re: Mercatus study

[lapucelle]

71. Because the BS bill has no funding provisions,

assumptions are necessarily made. That's why the study discussed two possible outcomes that are equally likely.

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

How is the BS bill S1804 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. Because BS's S1804 in no way addresses funding, it fails 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.

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