Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

2016 Postmortem

Showing Original Post only (View all)

Admiral Loinpresser

(3,859 posts)
Fri Sep 18, 2015, 01:48 PM Sep 2015

Bernie needs a better answer about the $15T Swift Boats! [View all]

Bernie needs a better answer about the $15T BS.

1. The WSJ lied about Bernie’s platform by attacking pending House legislation (the Conyers single payer bill).

http://www.wsj.com/articles/price-tag-of-bernie-sanders-proposals-18-trillion-1442271511

2. They claimed that Bernie’s single payer program would cost an additional $15T in federal spending over ten years (a double lie).

3. The lie about the $15T was rebutted the next day by Professor Gerald Friedman, author of the study on which the WSJ was based. Friedman, in an open letter to the WSJ published in the Huffington Post, stated that under his study, the federal government would SAVE about $5T in expenditures over ten years.

“Because of the nearly $10 trillion in savings, it is possible to fund over $4.5 trillion in additional services while still reducing national health care spending by over $5 trillion. With these net savings, the additional $14.7 trillion in federal spending brings savings to the private sector (and state and local governments) of over $19.7 trillion.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gerald-friedman/the-wall-street-journal-k_b_8143062.html

4. This morning, Bernie appeared on CBS and was grilled about the WSJ $15T lie. CBS perpetuated the lie with a graphic stating: “Cost of Sanders’ New Programs—Medicare for all: $15T.” See CBS video at 3:35.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/128052672

5. In response, at 3:10 of the video, Bernie said that businesses would no longer have to buy private health insurance for their workers and the per capita cost of healthcare would come down. His answer was true, but inadequate, imo.

6. I believe the Swift Boating on this issue has just begun and will only grow much greater.

7. The correct response, imo, is political judo: a single payer plan will NOT cost anything extra, in fact, it will SAVE the federal government trillions of dollars over ten years, as well as saving individuals and businesses over $10T over the same period.

So here is my suggested response to $15T questions:

“Let’s be clear: the Wall Street Journal, a right wing newspaper owned by billionaire Rupert Murdoch lied about single payer health care. The Conyers single payer plan now pending in Congress will NOT cost anything extra, in fact, it will SAVE the federal government about five trillion dollars over ten years, as well as saving individuals and businesses over $10T over the same period.

In an open letter to the WSJ, Gerald Friedman, the author of the study said exactly that the day after the spurious attack. In due course I will come out with my own plan that will have comparable savings with the Conyers plan.”

Bernie’s answer was good, but not adequate in my view. We must meme the public into associating single payer with SAVINGS, not COST. Otherwise we may lose this battle, and this is central to Bernie’s platform. The Swift Boats are already in the water. Now is the time to sink them with the torpedoes of optimally-framed truth.

48 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The problem is that the government will actually have to spend $15T more over ten years with SP. DanTex Sep 2015 #1
You are still spouting the RW lie. HooptieWagon Sep 2015 #3
No, I'm not. The author of the study didn't deny that it would cost $15T, he just pointed out that DanTex Sep 2015 #5
And out of pocket costs will be greater than any additional taxes. HooptieWagon Sep 2015 #6
But the government still ends up spending (a lot) more. And taxes go up. DanTex Sep 2015 #8
Not necessarily. HooptieWagon Sep 2015 #11
Yes, necessarily. Paying for the healthcare of everyone who currently has private care DanTex Sep 2015 #12
It has saved lots of money in every country that has adopted it. HooptieWagon Sep 2015 #14
It hasn't saved the government money (obviously). DanTex Sep 2015 #15
Who cares if the govt administrated it? HooptieWagon Sep 2015 #16
Not me. The question is whether the electorate will care. DanTex Sep 2015 #21
I was wrong! Admiral Loinpresser Sep 2015 #18
Yes, $5T in societal savings. That's what he should be emphasizing, and I believe he is doing that. DanTex Sep 2015 #20
I'm glad we have areas of agreement, but Admiral Loinpresser Sep 2015 #24
Bingo. $5T less will be spent on healthcare Recursion Sep 2015 #31
Not a net $15T. Admiral Loinpresser Sep 2015 #32
Personally I think every scoring drastically understates usage increase Recursion Sep 2015 #34
It's in his tables, Admiral Loinpresser Sep 2015 #38
The old TV commercial HassleCat Sep 2015 #2
This is succint: "If something cost 15T and saves 20T, it's not an honest headline... Schema Thing Sep 2015 #4
If he was honest, it would be a first. HooptieWagon Sep 2015 #7
Corporations are off the hook. Congrats Bernie. SonderWoman Sep 2015 #9
What you are describing is the system we have now AgingAmerican Sep 2015 #10
Sorry, but I enjoy only paying $20 when me or my kids need to see a doctor. SonderWoman Sep 2015 #17
So you pay no premiums AgingAmerican Sep 2015 #19
I don't think the poster understands how the current system works and how it is paid for. Warren Stupidity Sep 2015 #25
Do you even know what the subject is about? Scootaloo Sep 2015 #26
He wrote a direct response to the WSJ piece Cheese Sandwich Sep 2015 #13
Thanks. Admiral Loinpresser Sep 2015 #22
Also this response from Robert Reich: WSJ's claim of $18T price tag "entirely bogus" Cheese Sandwich Sep 2015 #23
I agree, they are unfairly portraying the cost of the legislation. But, even Vermont could not Hoyt Sep 2015 #27
I read Vermont got screwed up by ACA Admiral Loinpresser Sep 2015 #28
I think it is over for foreseeable future in Vermont. People just don't understand. Hoyt Sep 2015 #29
Yeah, state-level SP Admiral Loinpresser Sep 2015 #36
It's what Canada does Recursion Sep 2015 #39
No it isn't. Canada has five provinces not fifty states plus territories it isn't anything like an TheKentuckian Sep 2015 #41
Canada does its Medicare by province, not nationally Recursion Sep 2015 #42
How is it actually closer? We don't have anything strictly regulated and nonprofit that TheKentuckian Sep 2015 #45
Most private insurers in the US are not-for-profit Recursion Sep 2015 #46
Of course provider costs are high and in our society build there is no way to get TheKentuckian Sep 2015 #47
That may be true, but problem is people are too stupid to understand a seemingly high tax hike Hoyt Sep 2015 #48
Except it will actually increase government spending by that much Recursion Sep 2015 #30
False, not a NET $15T will be invested federally. Admiral Loinpresser Sep 2015 #33
And see my response: millions of people are going without care right now Recursion Sep 2015 #35
That's accounted for in the Friedman analysis. Admiral Loinpresser Sep 2015 #37
We can't afford to save FIVE trillion dollars. It is just too expensive! TheKentuckian Sep 2015 #40
It should become part of his stump speech! in_cog_ni_to Sep 2015 #43
They ought to examine Canada's universal health care system. delrem Sep 2015 #44
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Bernie needs a better ans...»Reply #0