While reporting on a major study of single-payer, many media outlets missed the report’s conclusion that the US could save $2 trillion and cover everybody if the US were to abandon our current fractionalized, market-based system and expand Medicare to everyone.
Hear Paul Song’s analysis and reaction as he discusses the study with Sonali Kolhatkar, as well as how California’s corporate Democrats have prevented progress on California Medicare for All, and the impact of Trump’s attacks on the Affordable Care Act.
How A Major Study of Medicare For All Backfired from Rising Up With Sonali on Vimeo.
Background
On July 30, 2018, the Mercatus Center released a fiscal analysis of the costs of a national single-payer healthcare system. The Center released to the media the claim that single payer would cost the US $32.6 trillion over 10 years. But a “deep dive” into the study led the People’s Policy Project to conclude:
The US could insure 30 million more Americans and virtually eliminate out-of-pocket health care expenses while saving $2 trillion in the process, according to a new report about Medicare for All released by the libertarian Mercatus Center.
The Mercatus Center, based at George Mason University, is a Libertarian research center dedicated to finding market-based public policy solutions.
Reviewing their previously released reports on healthcare, a clear divide appears between Mercatus Center analysts and other (non-Libertarian) public policy analysts. For example, on July 23, 2018, the center released another report, denying that US healthcare spending is a “crisis.” This, despite that fact that the US is spending nearly 18% of GDP on healthcare while leaving over 27 million Americans without health insurance.
Fact Check
While Politifact did not apparently fact-check the Mercatus report itself, they did analyze Bernie Sanders’ claim that the report actually showed $2 trillion in savings.
In cheekily thanking the Koch brothers, Sanders said a study they indirectly sponsored “shows that Medicare for All would save the American people $2 trillion over a 10-year period.”
The $2 trillion figure can be traced back to the Mercatus report. But it is one of two scenarios the report offers, so Sanders’ use of the term “would” is too strong. The alternative figure, which assumes that a Medicare for All plan isn’t as successful in controlling costs as its sponsors hope it will be, would lead to an increase of almost $3.3 trillion in national health care expenditures, not a decline. Independent experts say the alternative scenario of weaker cost control is at least as plausible.
We rate the statement Half True.
Business Insider, however, agrees with Sanders’ interpretation, concluding:
So while the price tag for the federal government would increase, the total cost of healthcare would go down, and more than 30 million uninsured Americans would get access to healthcare, according to Mercatus’ model.
—
HEAL California is an independent news and information hub focused on the California Medicare for All movement. We feature non-partisan news, views, podcasts and videos that highlight the continuing failures of our broken healthcare system and elevate the voices of advocates and organizations fighting for change.
Check out our Media page for experts and additional resources including links to legislation, studies, and more.
Keep up with the California Medicare for All movement –
Follow us on Facebook and Twitter.
Subscribe here:
