,
13 tweets,
5 min read
Read on Twitter
I thank @jaketapper for admitting his “fact check” on Medicare for All was not factual and editing his video.
Sadly, Tapper's video on Medicare for All along with other “fact checks” is riddled with errors peddled by the Koch-funded Mercatus Center. Let's go through them:
Sadly, Tapper's video on Medicare for All along with other “fact checks” is riddled with errors peddled by the Koch-funded Mercatus Center. Let's go through them:
1) We correctly state that the Mercatus report found that the American people would save $2 trillion over 10 years under Medicare for All. That finding is right here in Table 2 of the Mercatus study. 
2) Tapper says, “The study’s author says that that $2 trillion drop is not actually his conclusion. He says that’s based on assumptions by Senator Sanders.” Wrong. Provider payment rates in our plan are not assumptions, they are written into the bill...
...Any score that replaces Medicare reimbursement rates with some other set of rates is not a score of our plan.
3) What Tapper and others have done is say we're wrong because Blahous didn't actually intend to find that Medicare for All would be a great deal for Americans. The problem is: Blahous did find it would save $2 trillion – he just doesn't like that people are celebrating it.
4) This isn't just Bernie talking. @JeffDSachs found that Medicare for All could save Americans a lot more than the $2 trillion in the Mercatus Center report. cnn.com/2018/08/04/opi…
5) @swoolhandler and @awgaffney have found that even though the Mercatus study “grossly underestimates the main sources of savings” from Medicare for All, the “central finding” from the study is that it saves Americans $2 trillion over a decade. thenation.com/article/single…
6) @MattBruenig has found that payments to medical providers would only go down by 10.6% under Medicare for All (not 40%) which could be more than made up for by the administrative savings that would be achieved. peoplespolicyproject.org/2018/08/15/pro…
7) Harold Pollack at the University of Chicago said: "Over the long run, the Sanders people are very correct that you could implement a system like this that would be more disciplined, more economical and more fair than the current U.S. health system." ctpost.com/news/article/D…
8) The founder of Medicare Rights Center says, "Blahous concedes that Medicare for All would reduce national health spending by $2 trillion over 10 years, even after accounting for the cost of guaranteeing everyone coverage and offering better benefits." washingtonpost.com/opinions/yes-m…
9) Ernie Tedeschi, a former economist at the Treasury Department has also pointed out that the Mercatus study shows that Medicare for All will reduce national health expenditures by $2 trillion over 10 years. latimes.com/business/hiltz…
10) But instead of talking to any of these experts, the corporate fact checkers are blindly trusting the author of the Mercatus report even though his previous studies have been called “misleading,” “arbitrary,” “discredited,” “mighty odd” and “bogus.” mediamatters.org/research/2012/…
11) So, the question that must be asked is why would the corporate media would put their blind faith in a far right-wing economist whose past reports have been so thoroughly discredited by mainstream economists and experts?
