In Bernie Land, $42 Trillion in Revenue Pays for $97 Trillion in Spending

[lapucelle]

39. Here's what Lancet says.

Supplementary appendix
This appendix formed part of the original submission and has been peer reviewed. We post it as supplied by the authors.

The article was published as a policy paper, not as scientific research.


https://www.thelancet.com/collections/public-health

******************************************************************************************

Here's the "conclusion" of the authors. It reads like a point of view based on speculation about cost savings, rather than science. The lead author is a BS advisor.

Our projections indicate that implementing the Medicare for All Act specifically would generate net savings across a wide range of possible expenditure and financing options.

Objections to the Medicare for All Act based on the expectation of rising costs are mistaken. Some Americans express concern about the federal government controlling this large sector of the economy, or about violating capitalist principles. However, the health-care sector is already highly regulated in many aspects, and deviates from capitalist ideals through opaque and often monopolistic pricing.

Strong opposition should be expected from powerful vested interests, including the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries.

Counterbalancing these concerns is the moral imperative to provide health care as a human right, not dependent on employment or affluence. The medical community should seize this opportunity to promote well being, enhance prosperity, and establish a more equitable health-care system for all Americans.

Caveat lector.