Thread by @pdmcleod

Let’s talk for a minute about this study from libertarian think tank Mercatus Center. AP headline: "‘Medicare for All’ Would Cost $32.6 Trillion Over 10 Years, Study Says"

While sorta true, this misses that Mercatus is projecting M4A would actually *save billions of dollars*

$32.6 trillion over a decade sounds like a lot, and is. But it’s actually a few hundred billion less than current projected health care costs.

Mercatus found the two plans cost about the same (just paid for differently, obviously) but what we get is very different under M4A

Mercatus found that Medicare for all would lead to massive savings which are mostly offset by increased utilization. Translation: people get a lot more health care for the same bill.

Who does this help the most? People who currently cannot afford health insurance.

Where does this money come from? Not from raising taxes, per the study, but from lowering prices paid to health care providers (insurance companies, hospitals, drug manufacturers, etc.)

Ok but of course publicly funded health care is ultimately paid for by taxes so isn’t that a huge expense Not really, says Mercatus — again, a libertarian think tank! — because it’s offset by removing the massive health costs people pay now.

Very tl;dr, when businesses don’t have to pay their employees’ health costs they’re lifted of a huge expense, which leads to a big rise in wages, which leads to more taxible income.

So in conclusion, a LIBERTARIAN THINK TANK just found that Medicare for all:

- Saves money compared to status quo
- Provides far more health care, in particular to the poor
- Could be done without bludgeoning workers with new taxes.

Study is here for those who want to check it out: mercatus.org/system/files/b…