LOOK on Jamie Raskin's Face As Rep Jasmine Crockett Melts Down in TACKIEST...
AG Andrew Bailey Calls Down the THUNDER on KC Mayor Q's Admin for...
Puh-LEEZE! AP Spins HARD for Biden About the Economic 'Relief' Americans Got This...
SURPRISE, SURPRISE: Harrison Butker Becomes Top-Selling Chiefs Jersey With Men AND Women
OH, FFS: NBC Universal Teases 'Queer Planet' Documentary About Gay and Transgender Animals
Venezuelan Socialism Survivor Takes Protesting College Weenies to SCHOOL About Communism
80-Year-Old Palestinian Woman With Bottle of Water on Her Head Tells the IDF...
NPR Media Analyst Recommends George Conway's Anti-Trump Piece in The Atlantic
President Biden's Gaza Pier Project 'Moves Into Hamas Line of Fire'
NIH Official Says He Knows 'How to Make Emails Disappear' After a FOIA...
The Bulwark's Mona Charen Goes to Bat for David French After Panel Cancellation
Comcast Would Like to Remind You That Mother Nature Is Gender Fluid
House Judiciary Committee Holds Merrick Garland in Contempt for Not Turning Over Audio...
Biden and Kamala AKA Cheech and Ding Dong Announce Marijuana Reclassification
Jeremy Clarkson IS the UK's Sexiest Man and Everyone Knows It

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