Sorry, Bernie Is Right

[Uncle Joe]

(snip)

You can tell that this was their goal by looking at how the Mercatus paper was written, and specifically how its abstract was written. The first sentence contains the claim that many journalists put as their headline and lede: Medicare for All will “increase federal budget commitments by approximately $32.6 trillion” between 2022 and 2031. The rest of the abstract, and indeed the rest of the text of the paper, omits the more important fact that their estimate states that overall health expenditures would fall by $2 trillion over that period.

The abstract then says “doubling all currently projected federal individual and corporate income tax collections would be insufficient to finance the added federal costs of the plan.” This claim makes it seem like the author is saying we would have to more than double federal taxes, but this is only because the author curiously excluded payroll taxes from the sentence, despite the fact that payroll taxes are the second-largest federal revenue source and the fact that payroll taxes are the main proposed mechanism for raising the funds.

The abstract closes with the claim that “healthcare providers operating under Medicare for All will be reimbursed at rates more than 40 percent lower than those currently paid by private health insurance.” This is designed to trick journalists into thinking that Medicare for All would cut provider payments by 40 percent overall. Indeed, this phrasing did successfully trick the Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler, who wrote as much in his piece and later had to issue a correction. The abstract fails to mention that, although provider payment rates for the privately insured will go down, provider payment rates for the uninsured and those on Medicaid will go up.

(snip)

There are two important things to note about this report for our purposes here. The first is that the claim “Medicare for All will cost $32.6 trillion” and the claim “Medicare for All will save $2 trillion” are two ways of describing the exact same estimate. The former claim refers to how much more Mercatus says the federal government will spend. The latter claim refers to how much less they say America as a whole will spend. If the $32.6 trillion cost figure Mercatus promoted to the entire world is correct, then the $2 trillion savings figure is also correct.

(snip)

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/08/mercatus-report-bernie-sanders-medicare-for-all

A good read and most excellent rebuttal.

[lapucelle]

1. ...

However, in an alternative scenario in which cost-control works less effectively (see Table 4) Mercatus found that over the same 10-year period, national health expenditures would actually increase by $3.252 trillion compared to current law.

So while the number Sanders chose really does appear in the report, he’s cherry-picked the more flattering of two estimates.

snip=========================================

The $2 trillion figure can be traced back to the Mercatus report. But it is one of two scenarios the report offers, so Sanders’ use of the term "would" is too strong. The alternative figure, which assumes that a Medicare for All plan isn’t as successful in controlling costs as its sponsors hope it will be, would lead to an increase of almost $3.3 trillion in national health care expenditures, not a decline. Independent experts say the alternative scenario of weaker cost control is at least as plausible.

We rate the statement Half True.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/aug/03/bernie-s/did-conservative-study-show-big-savings-bernie-san/

[Uncle Joe]

2. the author addresses politifact as well.

(snip)

Apparently what you do is approach the various fact-checker journalists and try to sell them on the idea that the real estimate of Medicare for All is the alternative scenario Blahous constructed in the appendix of the report, an alternative scenario that Blahous himself says does not track Bernie Sanders’s plan.

PolitiFact pointed to the alternative scenario to declare the claim that the Mercatus study says Medicare for All will save $2 trillion “half true.” The Associated Press, which I didn’t even realize did fact-checking, called the claim “spin.” And the Washington Post gave the claim three Pinocchios out of a possible four Pinocchios, which apparently means it is a “significant factual error” or contains “obvious contradictions.”

Think for a second about how completely absurd these three suspiciously identical fact-check pieces are. They acknowledge that Sanders and others are right that the Mercatus estimate says there will be $2 trillion in savings. But then they say Sanders is mostly lying because he does not also talk about alternative scores of totally different plans that are not his plan.

It would be like if Sanders released a plan to raise the top tax rate to 70 percent and then a study came out that said the hike would raise $1 trillion of revenue but that a 60 percent hike would only raise $800 billion. Then Sanders said, “Good news, my 70 percent tax rate raises $1 trillion in revenue,” and the fact-checkers wrote pieces saying he was lying because he failed to mention that a 60 percent tax rate would raise much less. That is how ridiculous the argument of these pieces are.

(snip)

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/08/mercatus-report-bernie-sanders-medicare-for-all

[lapucelle]

3. ,,,,

Charles Blahous said that to come up with that estimate, Mercatus used a relatively generous assumption about how well Sanders’ plan will end up controlling health care costs. It assumes that provider payment will be reduced to Medicare levels, that negotiation with prescription drugmakers will generate significant savings, and that administrative costs will be cut from 13 to 6 percent.

However, in an alternative scenario in which cost-control works less effectively (see Table 4) Mercatus found that over the same 10-year period, national health expenditures would actually increase by $3.252 trillion compared to current law.

So while the number Sanders chose really does appear in the report, he’s cherry-picked the more flattering of two estimates.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/aug/03/bernie-s/did-conservative-study-show-big-savings-bernie-san/

Think for a second about how completely a̶b̶s̶u̶r̶d̶ [reasonable it is that] these three s̶u̶s̶p̶i̶c̶i̶o̶u̶s̶l̶y̶ i̶d̶e̶n̶t̶i̶c̶a̶l̶ a̶r̶e̶ fact-check pieces [reach similar] conclusions.They acknowledge that Sanders and others are right that the Mercatus estimate says there w̶i̶l̶l̶ [may] be $2 trillion in savings.

But then t̶h̶e̶y̶ ̶s̶a̶y̶ ̶S̶a̶n̶d̶e̶r̶s̶ ̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶m̶o̶s̶t̶l̶y̶ ̶l̶y̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶b̶e̶c̶a̶u̶s̶e̶ ̶h̶e̶ ̶d̶o̶e̶s̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶ ̶a̶l̶s̶o̶ ̶t̶a̶l̶k̶ ̶a̶b̶o̶u̶t̶ ̶a̶l̶t̶e̶r̶n̶a̶t̶i̶v̶e̶ ̶s̶c̶o̶r̶e̶s̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶t̶o̶t̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ ̶d̶i̶f̶f̶e̶r̶e̶n̶t̶ ̶p̶l̶a̶n̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶a̶r̶e̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶ ̶h̶i̶s̶ ̶p̶l̶a̶n̶.̶ [the fact checkers note that the claim neglects to acknowledge an alternative figure, which assumes that a Medicare for All plan isn’t as successful in controlling costs as its sponsors hope it will be and which would lead to an increase of almost $3.3 trillion in national health care expenditures, rather than a decline.]

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/08/mercatus-report-bernie-sanders-medicare-for-all

Do people generally think it is suspicious when three fact-check pieces from generally reliable news sources all reach the same conclusion?

[Uncle Joe]

4. Regarding Mercatus "generous assumption (s) " and alternative scenarios

There are two important things to note about this report for our purposes here. The first is that the claim “Medicare for All will cost $32.6 trillion” and the claim “Medicare for All will save $2 trillion” are two ways of describing the exact same estimate. The former claim refers to how much more Mercatus says the federal government will spend. The latter claim refers to how much less they say America as a whole will spend. If the $32.6 trillion cost figure Mercatus promoted to the entire world is correct, then the $2 trillion savings figure is also correct.

The second is that the $32.6/$2 trillion estimate is the one that is based on Sanders’s plan as written. Blahous says this explicitly on page twelve:

In contrast with Thorpe’s and the [Urban Institute] team’s earlier estimates, the estimates in this study are based instead on the language of the M4A bill as subsequently introduced, imposing Medicare payment rates on all providers and thereby substantially reducing national average provider payment rates relative to current law.

Blahous then goes on to say that if Bernie Sanders does not actually follow through with his plan as written and binstead implements a different plan with significantly higher provider payment rates, then of course the cost will be higher. Blahous estimates these costs with “alternative scenarios” he constructs and then publishes in the appendix of the report. It is important to be very clear on this point, though: these alternative scenarios are not Sanders’s plan but are instead completely different plans Blahous constructed with higher provider payment rates.

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/08/mercatus-report-bernie-sanders-medicare-for-all

[lapucelle]

5. I'm done editing Jacobin for the evening. (They really need to up their standards.)

It is not a matter of the estimates being a "plan as written", as much as it is two alternate, equally likely scenarios concerning costs. Jacobin chooses to pretend that only one exists.

Besides its failure to acknowledge the existence of anything but the the most optimistic of outcomes, the article is rife with a muddled mess of equivocation based on dubious assumptions.

There are two important things to note about this report for our purposes here.

That admission of an agenda at work is probably the most honest sentence in the entire narrative.

[Uncle Joe]

6. Have a good night lapucelle

[ehrnst]

8. Yep. In both editing and writing...

And anyone who thought they don't have an agenda that overrides any fact finding before that admission in black and white is kidding themselves.

[Duppers]

7. K & R