AP FACT CHECK: Savings from Sanders' Medicare plan dubious

[SouthernProgressive]

Those features involve nitty gritty details about payment rates for hospitals and doctors, which are not fully spelled out by Sanders, as well as the estimated cost of generous benefits that include long-term care services and no copays and deductibles for comprehensive medical care.

Sanders’ figure of $5 trillion over 10 years in health cost savings comes from a study by the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst. The lead author has been a political supporter of Sanders’ and the study was unveiled at an event hosted by a think tank founded by the senator’s wife.

Sanders also cites a savings estimate of $2 trillion over 10 years taken from a study from the libertarian Mercatus Center at George Mason University in Virginia. But the author of that study now says that Medicare for All advocates are mischaracterizing his conclusions.

Associated Press

Dubious is a very kind word. Sanders is making public claims with respect to a plan that is not complete. It's understandable that the plan is not complete, legislation is not his thing.

[HerbChestnut]

1. Every study, including the ones cited in the OP, estimate that M4A would save money.

Every. One.

[SouthernProgressive]

3. This is too funny.

You seem to have not read the "op" that you are referencing.

You are simply wrong. There is no truth to your statement and you don't have to go far to know that.

[HerbChestnut]

6. Show me a study that shows M4A would be more expensive than our current healthcare system.

[Tiggeroshii]

7. There is no study in the op or article that shows he is wrong.

Every study shows that it will save money.

[KPN]

10. The OP/article is dubious. Nice try.

[SouthernProgressive]

12. AP Fake News! nt

[KPN]

32. No, just a lack of any definitive substantiation.

It’s primarily skepticism regarding existing studies without any substantial and factually supported cost assessment to compare against.

[ehrnst]

46. Yep.

[Hortensis]

21. No they do not. Come on. How COULD they when its details haven't

begun to be worked out yet?

The day it was passed, the ACA ran to some 2300 or so physical pages, the product of many experts from many healthcare-related industries. And another possibly 11,000 pages of regulations followed, all of which affected costs.

Sanders' proposal is little more than the bare outline of a plan, like "we've decided to have our wedding on the beach in Cancun next March," and even that was not agreed on by an interdisciplinary army of experts. Just for one little set of details to at least be fleshed out to examine and adjust, will any and which hotels have enough rooms available for next March, how many guests will be invited, and how many will attend, and what ancillary services will be provided to them?

Sanders is anything but a detail man. As he explained in 2016, he has the idea and on getting the power would then bring in experts to turn the idea into reality. Right now he's basically at the trying to get the power point and still trying to figure out a workable combination of details on that.

[HerbChestnut]

22. You would have to ask the people who conducted the studies.

I'm guessing they based their estimates off information that was introduced as legislation a few months ago.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/1129/text

[Hortensis]

23. Where's an estimate from the General Accounting Office

or other independent auditor?

This is the bill Sanders' office produced.

[Cha]

2. KR for Reality Check!

[Tiggeroshii]

4. ...this article is dubious.

But the author of that study now says that Medicare for All advocates are mischaracterizing his conclusions.

Because he is a right winger.

[SouthernProgressive]

8. Not too far right for Sanders.

"Sanders also cites a savings estimate of $2 trillion over 10 years taken from a study from the libertarian Mercatus Center at George Mason University in Virginia."

The study has been one of Sanders go-to's. You are saying Sanders has been promoting a right winger?

[HerbChestnut]

11. He cites that study specifically BECAUSE it's from a right wing source.

If even people who disagree with him say that M4A would save money then that means it probably does.

[SouthernProgressive]

14. The author that Sanders likes to go to says they are mischaracterizing the study.

So it's good to direct people to the study but not good to listen to the main person involved. The "look over there" campaign tactic has run it's course.

[Tiggeroshii]

15. Their study is clear. Commissioned by right wingers but run independantly.

The people who comissioned it spin it their way without factual basis. Whereas the truth from the independant study speaks for itself.

[SouthernProgressive]

16. So it's an independent study? Not a right wing study? NT

[Tiggeroshii]

17. I never said it was a right wing study.

[Lordquinton]

43. "Commissioned by right wingers but run independantly"

What is hard to get about this?

[marylandblue]

36. So right wingers were honest enough to publish it, but not honest enough to explain it?

[ehrnst]

49. Bingo. (nt)

[ehrnst]

48. Interesting how many who support the Mercatus claim try to rip apart the Urban Institute as bogus

for their analysis of the study, because of erroneously perceived funding from Cigna at one point in their history.... and they could not possibly be trusted to do a study independently....

Just like they complain that WAPO can't be trusted when they do a fact check on Sanders, but the minute there is a flattering story on Sanders, they're sharing it on DU.

[bluewater]

5. spending would be $3.9 trillion under Medicare for all, versus $3.8 trillion now

"The Rand study modeled a hypothetical scenario in which a plan similar to legislation by Sanders had taken effect this year. It found that total U.S. health care spending would be about $3.9 trillion under Medicare for All in 2019, compared with about $3.8 trillion under the status quo.
Part of the reason is that Medicare for All would offer generous benefits with no copays and deductibles, except limited cost-sharing for certain medications. Virtually free comprehensive medical care would lead to big increases in the demand for services."

In other words, people will actually have health care they can afford to use, unlike now.

Treating medical conditions early will also save money in the long run. An ounce of prevention is much cheaper than an ounce of cure.

[SouthernProgressive]

9. +1

Seems you agree that Sanders isn't being straight with the American people.

[bluewater]

13. Seems I agree that medicare for all makes a lot of sense.

The Rand study made a strong case that utilization of services would greatly increase under Medicare for All compared to the status quo, with a marginal difference in up front costs.

Factoring in savings from catching and treating medical problems early, Medicare for All will be even more cost effective in the long run.

Right now people are not getting treatment because they cannot afford the high deductibles and co-pays in their current insurance coverage.

[Lordquinton]

44. "people will actually have health care they can afford to use"

You sure like to cherry pick your words.

[ehrnst]

47. It sounds like you are the one cherry picking.

And you're the only one who talks about cherry picking, therefore....

[Hoyt]

18. Until someone provides creditable cost estimates of what 43, 44, etc., year old man/woman will pay -

in taxes or premiums, depending on their circumstances -- I think support for "Medicare for All" will languish. That's mainly because most people, sadly, don't care about everyone else getting coverage if it is going to cost them more.

[Tiggeroshii]

19. I think they have the common sense to know that single payer

Will save them overwhelmingly in premiums copays and prescription drugs, with access to benefits that are inaccessible now, even if they are paying overall more for taxes than they are insurance. On a human level, people are getti g screwed daily by their private insurance and they know it. They generally und erstand that if they pay a little more, it would probably still save them a lot of money and actually give them access to services they need.

[Hoyt]

24. If we got rid of insurance companies today, at best our "premium" cost would drop 6 - 10%.

So, you go from $1000 a month to $910 a month. That's not much difference.

Worse, it doesn't take into account all the additional costs for the uninsured and underinsured, and removing deductibles and coinsurance, picking up dental, etc., that Sanders promises.

While I agree with Sanders that everyone should be covered, and very soon (like early 2021). I don't trust his BS about you'll end up spending less. Some people will, some won't, some will lose benefits they have now, doctors will get paid less and that will spill over to their staff, etc.

If we spend more to cover everyone, which I think we will, that's fine. Sanders just needs to be honest about it.

[Tiggeroshii]

25. It is true some will spend more and some will spend less.

But the ones who spend less are the ones who are spending way more than they should at this point. One of the main things that I think is not being talked about is how medicare for all will put us on a path towards regulating prescription drug costs, which is a huge cost not accounted for in most studies.

[Hoyt]

27. Drug costs are about 8% of our health care costs. Cut it in half, and you still aren't going to

save enough to make a big difference.

Look, I want everyone covered in a viable system that won't be cut to hell the next time GOPers take over. I don't think Sanders' plan is providing that.

[Tiggeroshii]

29. I just think it is doing far more than other plans can

Towards what you are saying. Even if it isnt perfect, it does put us on a solid path towards sustainable single payer. No other plan really does that so far imho.

[Hoyt]

33. I think we are close to doing something worthwhile, and Sanders deserves credit for encouraging it.

[Tiggeroshii]

35. Agreed.

Dont get me wrong, all the plans proposed are better than the status quo and the alternative, but we are the only modern industrialized country without single payer, and that needs to change yesterday.

[marylandblue]

37. That's not true. Germany and Switzerland do not have single payer.

Switzerland recently had a referendum to switch to single payer and it lost.

Germany has a version of ACA with public option. Most people are on the public option, but you can get private insurance if you prefer it.

[Tiggeroshii]

39. I stand corrected.

I believe we are the only one without universal coverage, anyways. That piece of information is actually quite encouraging. Thanks!!

[marylandblue]

40. Yes, we are the only one without universal coverage, but

I like to promote awareness of the German and Swiss models because they work and provide real world alternatives to single payer.

[Tiggeroshii]

41. And it is appreciated

Thanks!

[ehrnst]

50. The ACA is what you describe. And that was not enough for Sanders. (nt)

[ehrnst]

51. "Pay a little more"

How much exactly?

Pay a little more than their current Medicare premiums?

[NYMinute]

20. Just slogans no real plans nt

[Hoyt]

28. Good way to put it.

[Tiggeroshii]

31. Actually the plan is quite extensive

Last edited Fri Jul 19, 2019, 03:47 PM - Edit history (1)

Even with its flaws, it is still a plan. Unlike anything I can say about the other slogans or non plans out there.

[marylandblue]

38. Considering Biden's plan is basically Obama's original legislation, it's a well established plan.

[NYMinute]

42. I have a plan to go to the moon on my bicycle

Even with its flaws, it is a plan.

[still_one]

26. Bernie math. Not the first time either

I imagine we will see this again when they count delegates for the 2020 primaries

[oasis]

30. M4A, really?--"Whatever may be our wishes or inclinations, or dictates

of our PASSION, they cannot alter the state of FACTS and EVIDENCE". ---John Adams

[Everyman Jackal]

34. How are people going to be for or against Medicare for All

before they know what it is going to cost them? We need those facts before we can make a decision. Well, you do. I am against it and for one payer pays all. Just like I have.

[Tarheel_Dem]

45. K&R

[Gothmog]

52. Societal Savings are not tax revenues and this plan will not work in the real world

Such a plan in theory may generate societal savings but such savings would not pay for a program. Governments can only spend tax revenues and/or borrowings. This study does not say how one would pay for such a program in the real world. I note that Prof. Krugman like the concepts of such a plan in theory but notes that taxes will have to be raised a great deal to pay for such a plan
Back in 2016, here is his position Prof. Krugman compares Sanders hoped for health care savings to the GOP tax cuts. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/01/19/weakened-at-bernies/?_r=0

On health care: leave on one side the virtual impossibility of achieving single-payer. Beyond the politics, the Sanders “plan” isn’t just lacking in detail; as Ezra Klein notes, it both promises more comprehensive coverage than Medicare or for that matter single-payer systems in other countries, and assumes huge cost savings that are at best unlikely given that kind of generosity. This lets Sanders claim that he could make it work with much lower middle-class taxes than would probably be needed in practice.

To be harsh but accurate: the Sanders health plan looks a little bit like a standard Republican tax-cut plan, which relies on fantasies about huge supply-side effects to make the numbers supposedly add up. Only a little bit: after all, this is a plan seeking to provide health care, not lavish windfalls on the rich — and single-payer really does save money, whereas there’s no evidence that tax cuts deliver growth. Still, it’s not the kind of brave truth-telling the Sanders campaign pitch might have led you to expect.

Today, Prof. Krugman says that such a plan is feasible if you are willing to pay a great deal more in taxes
https://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/paul-krugman-explains-why-single-payer-health-care-entirely-achievable-us-and-how

If we went to government provision of all insurance, we’d pay more in taxes but less in premiums, and the overall burden of health spending would probably fall, because single-payer systems tend to be cheaper than market-based."

The amount of higher taxes are not quantified in this article by Krugman. To pay for any such plan will require massive tax hikes

Again sanders has utterly failed in his attempts to get Vermont to adopt his magical single payer plan because the state of Vermont cannot use hypothetical societal saving to pay for this plan. Even Krugman admits that much higher taxes are needed