FAIR: according to @WSJ: $18 trillion. Actual cost of Sanders' programs: -$2 trillion

[Catherina]

What ‘The Wall Street Journal’ Gets Totally Wrong About Bernie Sanders’s Agenda
The Journal wants to shock and awe voters with big numbers, but Sanders’s proposals would save America big bucks.
By
Joshua Holland
Yesterday 5:03 pm


Democratic presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders, left, poses with a group of nurses after speaking at a rally on the 50th anniversary of Medicare and Medicaid on Capitol Hill. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

This week, The Wall Street Journal dropped a terrifyingly large number on Senator Bernie Sanders’s upstart campaign, warning that his proposals would carry a “price tag” of $18 trillion over a 10-year period. It’s a number designed to shock and awe and discourage voters from giving the social democrat’s ideas a close look.

But according to the very data cited by The Journal’s Laura Meckler, Sanders’s highly progressive proposals wouldn’t cost the United States a single penny, on net, over that 10-year window. In fact, they’d cost less, overall, than what we’d spend without them.

It’s not hard to understand why. The lion’s share of the “cost”—$15 trillion—would pay for opening up Medicare to Americans of all ages. (Meckler notes that Sanders hasn’t released a detailed proposal, so she relies on an analysis of HR 676, Representative John Conyers’s Medicare-for-all bill.)

Rather than cost us more as a society, this proposal would only shift spending from businesses and households to the federal government by replacing our current patchwork system of public and private insurance with a single, more efficient system of financing.

But it wouldn’t be a dollar-for-dollar transfer from the private to the public sector. According to Gerald Friedman, an economist at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst who authored the analysis cited by the Journal, that transition would reduce American healthcare costs by almost $10 trillion over 10 years through economies of scale, better control of pharmaceutical costs, and savings on administrative bloat.

...

MORE: http://www.thenation.com/article/what-the-wall-street-journal-gets-totally-wrong-about-bernie-sanders-agenda/

[Fearless]

1. But but but the headline said!!!!

Fear! Socialist! Death panels!

[Doctor_J]

20. free market! government bad!

[Fearless]

31. Also, this just in... Water... wet.

[frylock]

2. I'm shocked to learn that Media Matters didn't help to debunk this.

[Duckhunter935]

3. Me too!

[jeff47]

4. ^^^ (nt)

[cantbeserious]

6. Shocked Shocked Not

eom

[kenfrequed]

33. Yeah

Brock probably has them on a bit of a leash.

I did a search for 'Bernie Sanders' on media matters and the results aren't encouraging.

[ChiciB1]

5. Big Intro Headlines Can't Really Hide True Facts...

I'm willing to bet that Bernie will be able to EXPLAIN the reality to WaPo and American people if they're willing to "look behind" this smear!

[sabrina 1]

42. If we were allowed to have debates, those headlines would lose their

shock value pretty quickly.

However, that is the REASON why we are not allowed to have debates!

[cyberswede]

7. Big K&R!

[Persondem]

8. Ok, so let's assume these numbers are ok. 15 trillion - 10 trillion = 5 trillion

So where is that $5 trillion going to come from? More taxes? Sure, try selling that to the American public. It would likely poll a few percentage points better than 15 trillion but would still be in the low single digits. Oh, but it's only $500 billion a year ... nope, still doesn't play well.

I like the idea of SP, but this is not the way to make it happen. This just puts yet another big arrow in the quiver of the GOP ad-meisters should Sanders win the nomination.

[daleanime]

25. So we should run away?

Not happening this time. Have a lovely night.

[Persondem]

26. Politics is a rough business. You do not give your opponents free ammo.

Big Dreams crash hard when they fail. You might want to invest in some political airbags.

[daleanime]

30. But you should let your opponent have their way.....

just to avoid a possible attack ad?


Sorry, that really doesn't make any sense to me.

[Hoyt]

9. Agree with OP. Problem is, even Vermont gave up trying to explain that to their citizens.

Imagine Bubba in red states.

[rhett o rick]

10. WSJ?? Funny how the Clinton supporter all of a sudden like Rup Murdock. What next? Fox News? nm

[Persondem]

13. If all you've got for a rebuttal is a lame try at guilt by association then you've already lost

How about getting some numbers that refute the WSJ article (and the original report) and come up with a program cost that the American public might actually support.

[frylock]

14. The WSJ article was refuted by FAIR, as is clearly stated in the OP.

[Persondem]

15. I am using the OP's numbers. As stated in my post upthread.nt

[frylock]

16. Yes, it's going to come from more taxes..

duhhh.

[Persondem]

17. So try "duhhh" on the American voting public and see if that helps you get

the trillions in new taxes passed.

So "duhhh" and "more taxes" are now your best answer. Yep, sure, go with that ... it will work juuuuust fine.

[frylock]

19. Perhaps the voters would rather spend that 5T on another war..

compliments of Clinton or the GOP.

[Persondem]

21. Nice to see you trying another tactic - change the subject!!! nt

[frylock]

22. So does this effect Sanders in the primary or GE?

[Persondem]

23. I doubt he'll make it to the GE, but the effect there would be deadly. The ads write themselves.

It will have a much lesser impact on the primary. People like to vote their hearts in primaries and avoid looking at harsh realities. For those that do look at such things as numbers with a dose of realism then it could tilt such voters away from Sanders.

[frylock]

24. Sanders has a groundswell of support from voters who will never be effected by his tax proposals.

[KoKo]

43. He proposes Tax Raises on the Top 1%, a tax on certain Wall Street Transactions

and Taxing Corporations who Offshore their profits. Also Single Payer would eliminate the gouging by Insurance Companies and Big Pharma which charges people outrageous prices for needed medications.

He has it in his policy proposals and repeated it on CBS News this a.m. when questioned about the WSJ Article.

[Persondem]

45. Nice ideas, but that doesn't come close to the trillions needed for SP.

It's about the math. It's not about pretty speeches or soaring rhetoric or Bernie says so. You want to refute the WSJ, then show me the numbers that show where the $$ is going to come from.

[KoKo]

46. Get rid of the Private Insurance Companies double dealing with Big Pharma

and you eliminate several trillion. Tax Wall Street on certain Transactions and another Few Trillion and Eliminate Offshoring Tax Breaks for Major US Corporations who can well afford it and add MORE Trillions...and eventually you come up with a Workable Solution.

[Persondem]

48. None of those expenses are currently paid by the government.

Until I see real numbers generated by real experts it's all just wishful thinking.

Those things should happen anyways. They would help bring the budget under control, and get the deficit paid down. Then we can see about SP.

[rhett o rick]

27. As I said, funny how the Clinton supporters are all of a sudden friends of the WSJ.

We are at war, it's a class war and the WSJ is not on the side of the 99%. Are you?

[Persondem]

34. Well if yours is truly a rightiousness cause, then you should have no

trouble coming up with specific numbers that refute the WSJ.

Ignoring the numbers and going all vague with the 1% vs. 99% meme does nothing to promote your cause vis a vis this OP.

[rhett o rick]

35. Again it's funny how that Clinton supporters become friendly with the WSJ if they like the

data. I think the numbers have already been refuted. If Fox News had given those numbers would you feel the same?

We are in a class war and the 1% ain't on our side.

[Persondem]

36. You obviously have nothing but dreams and generalities. Bye.nt

[rhett o rick]

37. At least I have that. What do you have? Side with the Oligarchs and hope they will treat you well?

[rhett o rick]

39. No trouble at all.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251598177

The WSJ lies in favor of the Right Wing.

[Persondem]

44. I checked it out. Nothing in there refutes the Trillions in new taxes. nt.

[rhett o rick]

49. Then you didn't really "check it out". Are you against single payer? nm

[Persondem]

50. I like the idea of SP. And there were NO numbers in the article or the link.

If you can find something other than rhetoric, please post the figures.

[rhett o rick]

51. And where did the WSJ get their numbers? Seems you trust them. nm

[Persondem]

53. Ok, so I have provided a link to the source of the WSJ article with all kinds

of well sourced charts and calculations. It includes 1.4 trillion dollars in new taxes which I have no big problem with. I LIKE the idea of SP but the RW propagandists will simply look at the 1.4 TRILLION dollars in new taxes and smear it all over Sanders. Tax and spend liberal (or socialist) is much easier to make a sound bite out of than a lengthy explanation of robin hood taxes and cost - benefit comparisons. In short, SP is a great idea, but crappy politics. And that will hurt Sanders should he make it to the general election.

Here's the link to the original study.

Happy reading.

So now it's your turn to counter those facts and figures with a well sourced document that refutes the trillions in new taxes.

[rhett o rick]

54. The Wall Street Journal is a Right Wing Rag. Funny how Clinton supporters now

support it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/128054534

"You see, the Wall Street Journal piece cited research by Gerald Friedman, a professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. And there was just one small problem with their interpretation of his research. They blatantly omitted his conclusion."

[Uncle Joe]

11. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Catherina.

[Major Hogwash]

12. This is the end game for Murdoch.

His last chance to fool the American people.

[rhett o rick]

28. Apparently the Clinton supporters love the WSJ and Murdock. nm

[Doctor_J]

18. Will all of the outraged hillarians from yesterday please check in?

It seems you were duped by Rupert Murdoch.

[TheFarS1de]

47. They are too busy...

reading the next edition of the Murdoch rags . It's not like they can promote HC policy , better sticking to the muck pile .

[AtomicKitten]

29. K&R

[LWolf]

32. K & R

[slipslidingaway]

38. kick - FAIR: according to @WSJ: $18 trillion. Actual cost of Sanders' programs: -$2 trillion

to find later

[rhett o rick]

40. I think it shows a certain hypocracy for those that are opposed to Sanders to all of a sudden

believe the WSJ and all of a sudden are anti-single payer. They are truly non-progressive.

[DanTex]

41. The cost to the government is (around) $18T though. There's the rub. They tried this in Vermont,

and it failed precisely because the cost to the government was so high.

[Recursion]

52. Wait. The article agrees that the cost to the government is $18T

WSJ and FAIR both agree that a Medicare expansion would cost the government $18 trillion.

FAIR's argument seems to be that because individuals and businesses are currently paying $16T of that, it somehow shouldn't count if the government takes that over.

[Cheese Sandwich]

55. But displaces the costs of private insurance and saves overall money by doing it.

So if a newspaper like the WSJ only reports the cost but not the savings, that's bad reporting.

The plan saves money overall by moving insurance service from the private sector to the public sector.

[Recursion]

56. Right but there's no such thing as "overall money"

A payroll tax of 10% (which is what we're talking about here) is visible in your paycheck every week, whereas the subsidy to your premium your employer was paying before wasn't. There's no guarantee that a given person or even most people will take home more money from all this (if it's a 10% straight payroll levy, they probably won't -- I'm willing to assume the legislators will tweak this).

[Cheese Sandwich]

57. 95 percent of Americans would pay less than they do now for health insurance and medical care.

That's the bottom line.

People in the US pay far more for health costs than in other countries. You think people don't see health insurance premiums now? You would be wrong.

I don't where you're getting that 10% figure. Can you provide a source for that?

[Recursion]

58. There's absolutely no way you can say that with any confidence

The 10% figure comes from HR 676 which is I assumed what we're talking about: it's a 10.2% payroll levy, a 12% corporate tax, and a 12% self-employment tax -- and the current Medicare levy stays in place (though it gets redirected to the new universal trust fund). The whole idea that people will make more assumes that businesses will take the money they were previously spending on health insurance, subtract the corporate tax, and give the remainder out to employees. And I have a bridge for sale.

It gets worse: people working at McDonald's or whatever who aren't getting employer subsidies still get the payroll levy increase (which will be larger than ACA caps insurance premiums at).

[Cheese Sandwich]

59. Link. Show me the 10% payroll tax.

[Recursion]

60. Read the bill

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr676/text

Section 211. A 10% payroll tax is what that works out to assuming current levels of medical use continue at Medicare prices.

[Cheese Sandwich]

61. Bullshit. The following progressive financing plan would meet the specifications of HR 676:

To my understanding the following progressive financing plan would meet the specifications of HR 676:

Health care financing in the U.S. is regressive, weighing heaviest on the poor, the working class, and the sick. With the progressive financing plan outlined for HR 676 (below), 95% of all U.S. households would save money.

• Existing sources of federal revenues for health care
• Tax of 0.5% on stock trades and 0.01% tax per year to maturity on transactions in bonds, swaps, and trades
• 6% high-income surtax (applies to households with incomes > $225,000)
• 6% tax on unearned income from capital gains, dividends, interest, profits, and rents
• 6% payroll tax on top 60% of income earners (applies to incomes over $53,000, tax paid by employers)
• 3% payroll tax on the bottom 40% of income earners (applies to incomes under $53,000, tax paid by employers)

source: "Medicare for All" would cover everyone, save billions in first year



The 10% probably your personal analysis or maybe something you read elsewhere. It is not in the HR 676 Bill.

You cited a very specific number "10.2%" so I just want to know where you got that. I'm assuming you didn't just make it up. Is it from the Heritage foundation or something? If it is, just admit it.

[Recursion]

62. Those numbers don't even come close to raising that much money

Now, if they really mean the transaction tax on every single transaction (including your 401K rebalancing) then yes, you could do it at about that level. But they don't mean that, or at least it's almost impossible to take that claim seriously.

[Cheese Sandwich]

63. You're just making things up. Cite evidence or expert analysis.

[Recursion]

64. Do some math on your own

This isn't exactly rocket science. You can find out what each of those categories are and do the math yourself.

[Cheese Sandwich]

65. OK so nothing. I thought so. Don't spread right-wing talking points.

Why would Democrats want to spread right wing lies and talking points against the hope of National Health Insurance?

The Wall Street Journal's scare tactics against Bernie Sanders health plan are "entirely bogus".

It is simply designed to frighten the public.

Expert analysis:

I've had so many calls about an article appearing earlier this week in the Wall Street Journal -- charging that Bernie Sanders’s proposals would carry a “price tag” of $18 trillion over a 10-year period -- that it's necessary to respond.
The Journal's number is entirely bogus, designed to frighten the public. Please spread the truth:

(1) Bernie’s proposals would cost less than what we’d spend without them. Most of the “cost” the Journal comes up with—$15 trillion—would pay for opening Medicare to everyone. This would be cheaper than relying on our current system of for-profit private health insurers that charge you and me huge administrative costs, advertising, marketing, bloated executive salaries, and high pharmaceutical prices. (Gerald Friedman, an economist at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, estimates a Medicare-for-all system would actually save all of us $10 trillion over 10 years).

(2) The savings from Medicare-for-all would more than cover the costs of the rest of Bernie’s agenda—tuition-free education at public colleges, expanded Social Security benefits, improved infrastructure, and a fund to help cover paid family leave – and still leave us $2 trillion to cut federal deficits for the next ten years.

(3) Many of these other “costs" would also otherwise be paid by individuals and families -- for example, in college tuition and private insurance. So they shouldn't be considered added costs for the country as a whole, and may well save us money.

(4) Finally, Bernie’s proposed spending on education and infrastructure aren’t really “spending” at all, but investments in the nation’s future productivity. If we don’t make them, we’re all poorer.
That Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal would do this giant dump on Bernie, based on misinformation and distortion, confirms Bernie's status as the candidate willing to take on the moneyed interests that the Wall Street Journal represents.

source: https://www.facebook.com/RBReich/posts/1073054849373777:0