KOCH V SANDERS
COMPILATION AND COMMENTARY
BY LUCY WARNER
AUGUST 23, 2018

I ALWAYS LIKE THE ARTICLES IN LATIMES.COM, AN UNABASHEDLY LIBERAL, PROGRESSIVE OUTLET WHO ARE ON THE SIDE OF THE PEOPLE AND NOT THE CORPORATIONS. HERE ARE TWO ARTICLES ON MEDICAL COVERAGE UNDER MEDICARE FOR ALL.

BERNIE SANDERS, ABOUT TWO MONTHS AGO, PUBLISHED HIS PROPOSAL ON MEDICARE FOR ALL. IN IT, HE PUT FORTH A DETAILED COST ESTIMATE, METICULOUSLY WORKED AND STATED HIS ASSUMPTIONS FAIRLY AND CLEARLY, ETC. MERCATUS CENTER, A KOCH BACKED LIBERTARIAN THINK TANK CHALLENGED IT. SANDERS READ THEIRS ALL THE WAY THROUGH CAREFULLY AND FOUND SOMETHING INTERESTING. THEY HAD BURIED A LINE ACTUALLY STATING THAT SANDERS PLAN SAVED AMERICANS TWO TRILLION DOLLARS OVER THEIRS. APPARENTLY NOT WANTING THAT TO BE DISCOVERED, THEY HID THAT INFORMATION ON A BACK PAGE AND BURIED IN A CHART. WHEN SANDERS FOUND THAT, HE TWEETED KOCH, THANKING HIM FOR PROVING HIS POINT.

THAT LITTLE BIT OF COMPETITIVENESS MAY HAVE INCREASED THEIR ATTACKS ON HIM. SOME WEEKS HAVE PASSED NOW, AND ANOTHER SHELL HAS BEEN LOBBED IN SANDERS DIRECTION. CHARLES BLAHOUS OF THE MERCATUS CENTER CHOSE TO TRY TO TAKE SANDERS’ PLAN APART LIMB BY LIMB. A WRITER ON THE WASHINGTON POST AND ANOTHER AT CNN JOINED WITH HIM IN THE FRAY, BY ATTACKING OUR POOR BERNIE.

IT APPEARS THAT THERE MAY BE A COORDINATED ATTEMPT TO BRING SANDERS TO HIS KNEES, AND POSSIBLY (DARE I USE THIS WORD?) “COLLUSION” BETWEEN THEM ALL. A CHAMPION FROM THE LEFT, HOWEVER, HAS RIDDEN UP WITH LANCE DOWN, AND HAS DONE A HANDY JOB OF RESTORING SOME BALANCE; THAT IS MICHAEL HILTZIK OF THE LA TIMES. HE IS A PULITZER PRIZE WINNER AND READING THESE ARTICLES OF HIS IS A TRUE PLEASURE TO ME. HAVE A LOOK AT THEM FOR YOURSELVES.

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-blahous-sanders-20180822-story.html
A Koch-funded think tank tries hard to pretend that it didn't find savings from Bernie Sanders' Medicare plan
Michael Hiltzik
By MICHAEL HILTZIK
AUG 22, 2018 | 6:30 AM

PHOTOGRAPH -- Charles Blahous explained his attack on Sanders' single payer Medicare for All plan to CNBC's Rick Santelli. (CNBC)

The Mercatus Center at George Mason University, a libertarian think tank partially funded by the Koch brothers, appears to be mighty embarrassed about its finding in a recent paper that the Medicare for All proposal from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) might actually reduce Americans’ overall spending on healthcare.

We know this because Mercatus has sent out several emails pushing back against reports about the finding. And the paper’s author, Mercatus fellow Charles Blahous, took to the opinion page of the Wall Street Journal to complain that “some have seized on a scenario in my estimates showing a slight decline in projected total public and private health expenditures under Medicare for All.”

Among those who “seized” on the scenario is Sanders himself, who crowed about it on Twitter after the paper was published at the end of July, mischievously getting the Koch brothers into his tweet because, why not?

Total health expenditures decrease by only 4 percent, even after assuming substantial administrative cost savings.

CHARLES BLAHOUS, ADMITTING THAT THE SANDERS PLAN CUTS EXPENDITURES BY $2 TRILLION (4%)
Share quote & link

Blahous grouses that Sanders and his followers overlook his main point, which is that the Sanders plan would sharply increase government spending on healthcare. He’s got the support of several conservative commentators and not a few credulous journalists. We analyzed Blahous’s paper here.

The problem with Blahous’ complaint, as it happens, is that he actually did find that the Sanders plan could reduce overall healthcare costs. That conclusion is right there on page 18 of his 24-page paper. Under the assumptions in the Sanders plan, he writes, “aggregate health expenditures remain virtually unchanged: national personal healthcare costs decrease by less than 2%, while total health expenditures decrease by only 4%, even after assuming substantial administrative cost savings.”

According to his own math, under Medicare for All, national health expenditures would total $57.6 trillion through 2031. They’re currently projected to be $59.7 trillion. In other words, Medicare for All would reduce total U.S. spending on healthcare by 3.44% (a bit less than the 4% Blahous cited).


COLUMN
How a libertarian analyst inadvertently made a good case for Bernie Sanders' Medicare for All
JUL 31, 2018 | 7:10 AM

Mercatus in its emails cite several ostensibly objective journalism sources calling out Sanders for, in effect, “cherry-picking” Blahous’ results to make Medicare for All seem thriftier than it is. They include Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler, the Associated Press, and Jake Tapper of CNN. Some of Sanders’ critics panned him for failing to give the context to Blahous’ finding; but it’s a little churlish to complain about someone leaving out details from a 185-character tweet, since Sanders has published all the details and assumptions underlying his proposal, and Blahous found them easily enough to use them.

Moreover, those sources engaged in a fair amount of cherry-picking of their own. And Blahous is dancing as fast as he can to minimize the implications of his own math.

Let’s get to the bottom of the controversy.

Bernie Sanders
✔
@SenSanders
Even a Koch brothers-funded attempt to trash Medicare for All can't hide the truth: Medicare for All will lead to a $2 TRILLION REDUCTION in national health expenditures over 10 years.

That’s trillion with a “T.” https://jacobinmag.com/2018/07/medicare-for-all-savings-mercatus-center-report …

12:21 PM - Jul 30, 2018

Even Libertarians Admit Medicare for All Would Save Billions

A new study from a libertarian think tank admits that Medicare for All would save a whopping $300 billion.

jacobinmag.com
9,381
4,510 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy

To begin with, all these estimates and projections of the cost of Sanders’ plan are dependent on the assumptions incorporated into the calculations — Sanders relies on some assumptions, Blahous on others, Kessler, et al, on yet others.

Blahous took Sanders’ assumptions as read and costed them out over time. Among those assumptions are that hospitals and doctors would be reimbursed for their services at Medicare rates, which are on average 40% below private insurance reimbursements (though higher than Medicaid reimbursements); that negotiating with drug companies and other price caps would reduce prescription costs by nearly $850 billion over 10 years; and that administrative efficiencies would save nearly $1.6 trillion over the decade.

Sanders made further assumptions about the cost of universal coverage, including dental and vision care for all, and the elimination of deductibles and copayments. The bottom line from all those assumptions, Blahous acknowledges, was the reduction of U.S. spending by $2 trillion over 10 years.

Much of the pushback in the press against Sanders’ plan is based on the theory that his assumptions are too aggressive. That’s Blahous’ argument too. (Blahous also tries to put his thumb on the scale by describing a $2-trillion reduction as “only” 4%. In other words, he’s making the assumption that people would consider $2 trillion to be a negligible number.)

The AP, for instance, says Sanders’ “scenario in which hospitals and doctors accept significantly lower payments for many patients … is a big asterisk, and one that Sanders fails to disclose.” It’s a little odd to claim that Sanders “fails to disclose” his reliance on lower payments for providers — since it’s explicitly part of his plan and was penciled out by Blahous. Did AP even read the plan, or just the tweet?

Kessler says the claim of lower spending requires “generously accepting Sanders’ assumptions that he could squeeze providers.” Also at the Washington Post, libertarian columnist Megan McArdle warns that implementing Medicare for All would require “hard choices.” (No kidding?)

Tapper fact-checked Sanders’ purported claim that Medicare for All would save the U.S. government $2 trillion and declared it “false.” But Tapper was the sloppy one: The Blahous calculation, repeated by Sanders, is that the program would save Americans, not the government, $2 trillion. Big difference. Tapper later corrected his video to get it right.

In any case, “never gonna happen” is the weakest and laziest argument anyone can make in a public policy debate. The assertion that provider reimbursements will never, ever be reduced is based on nothing but hot air. Not very many years ago, after all, legalization of gay marriage was unimaginable in the U.S. political system. In 1859, slavery looked like it was with us to stay; that assumption ended Jan. 1, 1863. On the morning of Nov. 8, 2016, it was widely assumed that no one as crass and unfit as Donald Trump could become president; by 9 p.m. that night it was reality.



CAVILS* -- https://www.google.com/search?q=cavils+meaning&oq=cavils&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l5.2445j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

verb

3rd person present: cavils
1. make petty or unnecessary objections.
"they caviled at the cost"

noun

plural noun: cavils
2. an objection seen as petty or unnecessary.