Did conservative study show big savings for Bernie Sanders’ Medicare for All plan? ๐Ÿ’๐Ÿ’๐Ÿ’๐Ÿ’

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 Mercatusโ€™ 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 thereโ€™s definitely something to what Sanders said.

Some reasons for pause.
The Mercatus reportโ€™s author took issue with Sandersโ€™ focus on that figure.

Charles Blahous said that to come up with that estimate, Mercatus used a relatively generous assumption about how well Sandersโ€™ 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, heโ€™s cherry-picked the more flattering of two estimates.

Source: Did conservative study show big savings for Bernie Sanders’ Medicare for All plan? | PolitiFact


  1. Medicare for all is a back door move to price controls. Limit the revenue, means limit the supply.

    You may want to encourage Democratic Socialist Bernie to watch Robin Williams in the 1980’s film “Moscow on the Hudson”, or perhaps take a current day trip to Venezuela where inflation is expected to top one million percent this year! (http://time.com/5346708/imf-forecast-venezuela-inflation-2018/), for this country in a five year long depression that saw the economy contract 50%!, an unprecedented collapse in modern times (https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/venezuelas-collapse/2018/05/18/6d1f1590-5a93-11e8-9889-07bcc1327f4b_story.html?utm_term=.82e9455a940e!

    But, all that aside, there is a reason why private insurance reimbursement rates are 40% – 50% higher than Medicare allowables. Back in 1988, President Reagan signed into law the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act. It was endorsed by the AARP. The only problem was that retirees themselves, the beneficiaries, would be funding the improved coverage. Once retirees found that out, they howled, and perhaps for one of the few times in American history, the law was revoked, almost before it was implemented. https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/pdf/10.1377/hlthaff.9.3.75

    But, Congress learned. They learned that seniors really did like limits on cost sharing for medical services – if the limits were funded by others. So, Congress devised a complicated scheme of Resource Based Relative Value System reimbursement rates for physician and other services, Medicare Allowable caps on balance billing and Diagnostic Related Group reimbursement rates for hospital services. Voila, the annual inflation rate (in terms of point of purchase or out of pocket cost sharing) has been ~3% per year for the last 35+ years!

    Who paid for this? If you are working and covered under private health insurance, you paid for this.
    You see, the physicians and hospitals charge you more in order for their practice to be profitable.

    Medicare for all, with Medicare reimbursement rates, will as Mr. Blahous confirms, immediately lower costs. And, I am sure your heart surgeon will give up her Mercedes, and sell the house because the revenue is insufficient for her to make the payments – alongside her payments for student debt.

    Instead, unless Bernie’s scheme makes private treatment outside the system illegal, expect physicians to create a system of private insurance – if only to continue to attract Americans who, like their Canadian counterparts, will have to choose between waiting in pain for treatment under Medicare or use their own funds with the hope of some form of government reimbursement https://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypipes/2018/06/11/canadians-are-one-in-a-million-while-waiting-for-medical-treatment/#783b09083e7d See also: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/canadian-medical-tourism_us_5949b405e4b0db570d3778ff

    Time is money. Note the estimate of lost wages due to medical wait times.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Something else about the analysis by Charles Blahous as reported in an article on Yahoo Finance on 8-6-18 was that the price tag for Medicare for All would be $3.3 trillion per year. Total federal spending currently is $4.2 trillion per year. The government can’t pay its debt now and are we willing to raise spending by 79%? I do not know of anybody or of any business that can survive when taxes will have to be doubled to pay for Medicare for All. What’s the point of working and being healthy if you cannot keep your money?



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s