Senator Sanders never disappoints. He never fails to mislead Americans with pie-in-the-sky ideas and assumptions and a complete lack of understanding of human nature. It’s quite sad, because he is no doubt sincere.
Do you think a 30-40% cut in hospital and physicisn payments is realistic? Do you think government can cut administrative costs by over 50% and still manage our vast health care system efficiently? Senator Sanders does.
That’s why it was so easy for him to conclude that the Mercatus report substantiated his assumed savings from Medicare-for-all.
Under Mercatus’ projection for Medicare for All, the total amount of health expenditures would actually fall compared to what is expected under a continuation of the current system.
Specifically, total health care expenditures would fall by $2.054 trillion over 10 years, according to Mercatus.
So there’s definitely something to what Sanders said.Some reasons for pause.The Mercatus report’s author took issue with Sanders’ focus on that figure.
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.