quote: (post)

Originally posted by Surtur

So wow, CNN posted an updated "fact check" of the story. Case closed, right?

Ha no, cuz even after that Jake Tapper couldn't help himself. Bernie Sanders was tweeting out various things about what happened, which all turned out to be facts he got right from the study. Tapper then tweets this:

'Your views on the Mercatus Center study and Medicare for All are your own, senator, but four major fact- checkers agree you're citing the report out of context."

Not only was Bernie not taking it out of context...but the "four major fact checkers" Tapper cites all used the SAME source he did, the author of the study(who by now it is clear was trying to backtrack on what the study showed, so he's shockingly not reliable and Tapper acts like he is)

And Tapper isn't the only one who got this wrong. Fact checkers at the Washington Post also did. Jesus christ lol. Two major media outlet "fact checkers" turned out to be full of shit.

Side note: I find Jimmy Dore can actually be tolerable as long as he's not around TYT.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Eternal Idol
Surtur, what is your current opinion of Sander's Medicare-for-All plan? Has it swayed one way or another after Mercatus Center's backpedaling and damage control became evident?

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Robtard
So after three pages of flaming Bernie and shit-posting, now these same people are starting to concede that Bernie seems to have been correct all along.

Well, babysteps is better than no steps.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Robtard
Sure, kid.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Robtard
So after three pages of flaming Bernie and shit-posting, now these same people are starting to concede that Bernie seems to have been correct all along.

Well, babysteps is better than no steps.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
What, lol. I debunked this entire thing on a different thread.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by dadudemon
And I agreed/conceded that particular, too. I don't think it is up for debate, really...

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Surtur
So Bernie WAS wrong?

quote: (post)

Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
The US healthcare system is superior to any Single Payer system of comparable size.

Costs of Universal Healthcare:

Before diving into the costs of health care, we should at least establish a time horizon for the analysis. Most studies, including the one Sanders, cites on his website use a 10-year gap.

Analyses conducted on the costs of Bernie Sanders healthcare plan:

Friedman: 13.8 trillion(2017-2026)

Thorpe: 24.3 trillion(2017-2026)

Mercatus Center: 27.7 trillion(they refer to this as a conservative estimate, likely more)(2019-2028)

Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget: 31 trillion(2017-2026)

Urban Institute(best study): 32 trillion(2017-2026)

It is also worth noting that Sanders only cites Friedman's analysis on his website. Despite, most academics disapproving of it and the lack of peer review. Why is the Friedman report inaccurate?

1. Friedman assumes that that states will continue to pay for Medicare and CHIP after the elimination of those programs.
2. He severely exaggerates savings from Single Payer.
3. Inaccurately assesses additional associated with the removal of cost-sharing.
4. Provider savings are unrealistic.
More on this topic here: http://prospect.org/article/why-san...s-campaign-says

Due to these facts, we can dismiss Friedman's two-page invoice and focus on the other numbers cited. What is the cause of the discrepancy between Thorpe(off-hand analysis) and the Urban Institute(peer-reviewed published report)? Look at pg.11&12 of the Institute's study for more information: https://www.urban.org/research/publ...iew/full_report

For the reasons discussed there, I will rely on the Urban Institute as my primary source, when comparing costs. I also want to address one more detail, before continuing. Bernie Sanders' smug video. The Washington Post, of all people, fact-checked this claim. I will briefly report their findings. Sanders manipulates the principle of charity when thanking the Koch brothers. To quote the Post,



Blahous even notes this in the study, but Sanders ignores that fact. The post concludes,



So, in reality, the increase in national health expenditures is close to the one provided in the Urban Institute's study(6.6 trillion). The next two parts will be on healthcare quality and debunking bullshit.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by dadudemon
I would prefer you delete the "comparable size" qualifier because I don't think anything else out there is of comparable size. Far larger systems exist like China (not single payer). Far smaller systems exist like Singapore's.

In what way is the US Healthcare system superior to any Single Payer or Universal Healthcare systems, out there?




Okay, fair.





Okay, so what about the United States healthcare costs?


1. As a percent of GDP: 18%

Also, no one uses PPP so that's just nominal GDP, I think. But I could not verify.

2. Per Capita: $10,348

3. Healthcare Outcomes in the United States:
We do anywhere from decent to atrocious compared to our peers:

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na...htmlstory.html#

And here's a recent study:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/ja...bstract/2674671




Now, correct me if I'm wrong, the US is doing very terribly with respect to our spending on healthcare. We should have significantly better outcomes than our peers considering how much more we spend, per capita, right?

quote: (post)

Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
I mean the Urban Institute within the study itself says that the plan will not cost 6.6 trillion more than we already spend nationally. People tend to ignore that fact.