Editorials & Other Articles
In reply to the discussion: The Fact-Checkers Are Clueless [View all]Uncle Joe
(65,206 posts)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?