Ben Sasse Announces His Terminal Cancer in Touching Letter
Michael Shellenberger Obliterates Attempted Defenses of 60 Minutes' Journalistic Honor
Hunter Biden Does His Best Tiffany Gomas Impression By Declaring, 'That MF Laptop...
60 Minutes' Segment Contained a BOMBSHELL About Who Trump Considers Criminals (Who Wants...
Nicholas Kristof Says Congolese Girls Suffer Because of Careless Men in DC
Our Gift to You This Holiday Season
Department of Interior Pulling the Plug on Five Wind Farms, Citing National Security...
Mass Deportation Won't Rip Families Apart—Illegals Chose to Break the Law, Now They...
Young Girl in Minnesota Says They Should Not Be Illegal Because We're on...
Congresswoman Is Appalled That Trump and Vance Can't Stop With the Openly Racist...
Brian Stelter Pretty Jazzed That Canadian TV Channel Has Posted That 60 Minutes...
DOJ Sues DC Metropolitan Police Department for Infringement on Second Amendment Rights
Palmeri Claims Blowing Up Terrorist Boats Damages Trump's Legacy More Than Biden's Afghani...
Harmeet K. Dhillon Suing Minneapolis Public Schools for Anti-White Discrimination
'PEAK IRONY!' Joe Biden's Preemptively Pardoned Son Slams Connected Elites Who Avoid Conse...

Stop the presses! This time it's the Democrats "seizing" — on cherry-picked Medicare-for-all numbers

It’s become a well-known joke here that whenever Democrats do something stupid, the headlines the following day always use phrasing like, “Republicans pounce” or “Republicans seize on” whatever stupid thing the Democrat did, thus changing the focus of the story.

Advertisement

So imagine our shock and surprise when we actually saw the phrase “Democrats seize” in a Washington Post headline.

Glenn Kessler writes that Democrats cherry-picked bits of a report written by Charles Blahous that they say proves that Medicare-for-all would save the country $2 trillion. However, Blahous is calling foul on that claim. Kessler writes:

In the fourth sentence of the report’s abstract, Blahous wrote, “It is likely that the actual cost of M4A would be substantially greater than these estimates, which assume significant administrative and drug cost savings under the plan, and also assume that healthcare providers operating under M4A will be reimbursed at rates more than 40 percent lower than those currently paid by private health insurance.”

The main point of his study is being ignored by Democrats — that even by generously accepting [Bernie] Sanders’s assumptions that he could squeeze providers so much, the plan would still raise government expenditures by $32.6 trillion. This is in line with a 2016 estimate by the left-leaning Urban Institute of an earlier version of the M4A plan — that it would cause federal expenditures to increase by $32 trillion. (Without the provider cuts, Blahous estimated the additional federal budget cost at nearly $40 trillion over 10 years.)

Advertisement

Good point … but a lot of The Washington Post’s followers are not pleased with this fact-check:

So you subscribed to The Washington Post until now, but canceled because suddenly the paper “doesn’t care about facts”? Fine with us.

Advertisement


Related:

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Twitchy Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement