Three days is too long to admit that you’ve made a huge mistake.
Turn Off The Tapp!
Credit where it’s due. At least he acknowledged the error. Tough to come by when show after show let’s the President’s lead personal attorney come on the air to set the weekly talking points agenda.
On the plus side, Trump is always quick to call out “fake news!” particularly when it comes from CNN. Thankfully, we have his tweets pointing out how bogus this Koch claim was. Oh, wait. . .
Although Trump is spot on that we have been saturated with “fake news”, he fails to mention that Trump, the GOP and their FOX News (faux noise) channel generate more “fake news” than all other sources combined.
Mainstream media’s business model is doing what it takes to sell more newspapers (print), getting more audience (broadcast), and getting more advertisers. When I was a journalist a half century ago the editor would serially tell me to “go get a story”. Ever since then I have witnessed corporations, their media and politicians NEVER LETTING FACTS GET IN THE WAY OF A GOOD STORY.
These are all good points, but I look forward to the day when economists include the deadweight losses of various tax measures in their proposals.
Also, if I spend $0 on health care today (aside from what’s extracted from my check because it’s not like I can negotiate a raise in lieu of health insurance coverage, realistically) how much will I gain / lose from a M4A proposal?
Tapper clearly confused the overall populace with the government when discussing expenditures, but I believe factcheck.org and Tapper are standing by the other point that any savings projected by this study are not believed by the author (Blahous). According to https://www.factcheck.org/2018/08/the-cost-of-medicare-for-all/, Blahous took a lot of assumptions from the pro Medicare For All side (which I’m on) in terms of cost savings to compute how much government expenditure would go up, but he doesn’t actually believe these numbers and thinks it will actually cost more (i.e. the savings on negotiating lower prices won’t be realized). It is a reasonable argument that he took the best case scenario to show that even in this case, the government costs go up much more than he and his ilk can tolerate.
In my opinion, we are talking about 2 out of 32 trillion (10 year number) or 6% which is way better than I expect anyone can estimate anyway. And what is the point of comparing numbers - the current system throws many under the bus - even if he showed Medicare for All cost 2 trillion more over 10 years, that isn’t a bad deal if you factor in the many differences (more people are helped, less financial stress on non-rich people and on and on). Even 25% more money might be worth it.
The bottom line for me is what I always say - we need a compact, relatively easy to understand proposal that is unified between House and Senate progressive Democrats now (not waiting for the normal House/Senate reconciliation process), and we need web pages that people can go to and plug in a dozen numbers or so (what their income is, what they pay now for health insurance if they have it, etc.) and tells them what their extra cost or savings are. I’m willing to and expect to pay a bit more than I do now under the new and better system. Many people will see a number that shows they’ll be paying a lot less. The very rich will likely all pay significantly more and a certain percentage will be OK with that and others won’t - the only way around that is to outvote the disgruntled rich people and carefully fight any propaganda they buy.
Great, and important, points.
The issue I have is we are discussing something that won’t happen if we decide Trump should have two more years to stack the courts and run HHS unchecked. If progressives are willing to let Medicaid expansion whither for a spurious moral crusade—breaking Democrats—I don’t see how Medicare-for-All gets close to happening. You have to have people in places to make policy and law work. We could have a House that holds hearings on various financing options etc. like we did with Medicare so that a president has workable plans in place. To read comments at CD, it all spawns by magic.
“Fake news” is not confined to Fox, Breitbart, etc.
I, personally, have far more problems than just the framing and either Tapper’s ignorance on the issue or his manipulation of the truth. I cannot prove intent, but either is bad since it is his job to study the matter and to speak only when he understands the issue.
The study should not be the basis for policy discussions on the issue. Most other studies show far more savings than that study. That study was the focus of Sanders and AOC only because of the source. A notorious right wing economic department (read Democracy in Chains for information about the economics department at George Mason), funded by the Kochs, even found society wide savings. That, and the fact that the study found aggregate savings despite its overly conservative and biased assumptions. So, if we are to discuss whether or not single payer would save our society money, it makes no sense to just focus on that study. Some have critiqued that study and said that it understated the savings by trillions. We should focus on all studies. If Tapper wanted to do a segment just on that study, without any wider implications, his segment there would have made a little more sense (not much, but a little). But his segment was on single payer saving money society wide. So, where were the other studies showing far more savings? That is an intentional omission as well.
And in regards to single payer, it isn’t as if we just have to rely on studies. Single payer systems actually exist. So, we can see that they cost less, have less waste/overhead, less social costs too. Those social costs have to factor into the cost of the system, since single payer systems will not result in 15 times the amount of people that died on 9/11 dying each year because they lack access to healthcare, they don’t have our problems in regards to job lock or things like bankruptcies, and they aren’t an economic deadweight on their domestic economies. And it would be nice if there were discussions as to why that is the case, cause once you get into it, you realize that single payer will always be cheaper and less wasteful. There are inefficiencies with private health insurance companies (massive executive pay, profits, marketing and lobbying costs, huge administrative, accounting and legal apparatus, etc.) that are simply not found in public systems. System wide, we have to create a huge administrative, legal and accounting apparatus to also deal with a hugely complex system, which doesn’t exist with single payer systems.
When you look at the totality of studies, actual data on single payer systems versus ours, and the reasons why single payer systems will always be more efficient (and humane), then there is really no debate. And that, to me, is the biggest scandal, that the right wing can only take part in these debates because they are allowed to outright lie, and the media treats their lies and denial of truth as a legitimate argument. It’s absurd, and a total abdication of responsibility.
If there is an actual debate, it is over how much single payer would save us, and how many lives we would save by adopting such a system, and that isn’t the “debate” we hear in the media. If it was, then single payer would be implemented far sooner than it will be. So, there are implications as far as propaganda like this, and those like Tapper that forward this bullshit are at least partially responsible for those that will die because of this system in the meantime. Fuck him and all those like him.
It seems Jake just wants to keep his job, not end up like Ratigan, Schultz and Donohue.
And this is the Sander’s plan–imagine the savings from HR676, true Expanded and Improved Medicare For All that combines Medicare and Medicaid and everyone is equal before the white coats. Not to mention the dignity single payer will provide because of the equal treatment.
Dignity and equal treatment are words the U.S. Capitalist Medical Complex don’t want the MSM to use in the same sentence, when talking about universal healthcare in our country.
Likewise, the MSM doesn’t capture eyeballs and ears, telling the audience about the lower cost of preventive medical practices vs.miracle babies and god-like interventions by heroic doctors. The selling of the sizzle and the alchemists behind the miracle drugs, etc. is a much better product for the advertisers they’re courting. The consumer and their needs can be manipulated over time just perfectly, thank you very much.
Bur it’s too late. How many people who heard the false “fact check” will hear the rescinding of the falsehood? Tapper is not a progressive, he’s not even really a New Deal liberal. He’s a rich guy who basically trusts the system as it is, seeing as it’s done fine by him. We can’t wait around for people who get paid handsomely by large corporations to do our communicating for us. Tapper and his ilk will always fade away in the clutch, not because of some kind of procedural error, but because of where their fundamental loyalties lie. The need is for alternatives models of all kinds: alternative ways of doing business and keeping capital local; alternative ways of communicating information to citizens; alternative methods of organizing, an end run around a party up to its eyes in corporate cash. Too much energy wasted fact checking the fact checkers, not enough talking to people who are directly affected by the overlapping scams that pass for health care in the US.
Trump doesn’t have a clue as to who puts out fake news. The fact that he doesn’t throw Fox Noise into the mix is more than telling. G
It’s almost the wrong fight we are having. Even if there was NO cost savings, (everyone) would enjoy the security of being covered for anything, anytime.
I don’t have to argue or hassle with the VA or Medicare. They pay. G
Don’t disagree at all as someone who studiously avoids cable news.
We need to stop conflating “misunderstanding” with misdirection.
The latter is the central function of the corpress.
Phil Donahue had the most popular tv talk show or 20 years but Phil is a real journalist and wouldn’t lie about 9-11 and overthrowing Iraq to steal her oil so they fired him just like Rather. This should upset you. Corporate news works for profit. Private newspapers were more delegated to objective, accurate, timely news. Tapper is an entertainer. Andrea Mitchell, Brenda Starr from the Pentagon, Martha Raddatz from the Pentagon, Wolf, Katy, on and on these are puppets and entertainers and reporting the real news of the day to inform the public for their betterment is not a consideration soooooo in all honesty they really are NOT journalists at all but often lawyers. They work until they die on the set. Corporate propagandists who hide war crimes, stolen oil, dead babies for Jesus a Prince of Peace. This is of course all coming back to us like a boomerang from Satan. I think global warming will kill us all first. We are a drunk, extremely, heavily armed barbarian with a cumulative ninth grade education on our best day downhill with a tailwind. It is who we are, the sons and daughters of grass eating Irish.
A drunk from Genoa discovered an inhabited continent after wrecking on San Salvador, Holy Savior in the Baja Mar, shallow sea which became Bahamas. Our ancestors were released from prisons and shipped to America just like Australia and the Brits never thought any of them would make it much less prosper. The Pilgrims demonized every culture we have met since Plymouth, marched armed Irish farmers through the Cumberland Gap and murdered every living organism for fortune declaring a manifest destiny, an ordained, divined right to slit people’s throats. Man has slaughtered for God since they could lie. This is America and we are very good at pillaging the earth for insatiable greed and corporate imposters hide every trace so we remain threatened and manipulated. Truth is not what’s for dinner! The Pentagon said it will censor journalists who write criticism of the DOD. The Pentagon needs to be taught a civics lesson about threatening real journalists.
so… 2 trillion in savings to the American PEOPLE at a cost of over $30 trillion to the American GOVERNMENT??? that sounds about right. and, it also sounds like something we need to RUN FROM…