,
4 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
I really enjoy the @NYTimes Daily podcast, but their episode on Medicare for All ended with a very shallow economic analysis, saying something like “the plan would cost $30 trillion, and how are we going to pay for it?”
nyti.ms/2HlJY1s
nyti.ms/2HlJY1s
@nytimes Here are some of my objections:
1. They left out that that is a ten year number.
2. It appears to have been calculated simply by multiplying the entire US healthcare spend (about $3T per year) by ten.
(More)
1. They left out that that is a ten year number.
2. It appears to have been calculated simply by multiplying the entire US healthcare spend (about $3T per year) by ten.
(More)
@nytimes 3. It leaves out the fact that the current Medicare program already covers $600B/year (i.e. $6T of their $30T)
4. It leaves out the fact that Americans ARE ALREADY paying this amount, just by different means
(More)
4. It leaves out the fact that Americans ARE ALREADY paying this amount, just by different means
(More)
@nytimes 5. It leaves out the fact that US healthcare costs are the highest in the world, and we would save about 30% if we matched other developed countries with universal healthcare systems.
In short, this was a shoddy piece of reporting from a podcast that I expect a lot more of.
In short, this was a shoddy piece of reporting from a podcast that I expect a lot more of.
