As we told you earlier, the office of Bernie Sanders has disputed an analysis of his “Medicare for all” proposal that put its price tag in the neighborhood of $32.6 trillion (that’s trillion with a T). The hilarious catch is that Team Bernie disputed the cost analysis but claim to have not even run their own numbers. However, Kirsten Powers thinks it was unfair of the AP to run the story considering the source of the report:
— Kirsten Powers (@KirstenPowers) July 30, 2018
If Team Bernie was curious maybe they should have gotten on that:
Guess what happens when you refuse to quantify your unicorn dream? Someone else quantifies it for you. https://t.co/t3et11lnwP
— Cuffy (@CuffyMeh) July 30, 2018
At least they have a cost-estimate, unlike the guy pushing it.
— Ripley (@Uhpinya_Native) July 30, 2018
Can you please link to Bernie‚Äôs cost analysis so I can compare the two?
— Ms. Velvet, The Handmaid‚Äôs Spy (@TMIWITW) July 30, 2018
Has it occurred to Powers that it’s kind of obvious there are some who don’t want the price tag of single-payer utopia to be explored?
So how much DOES it cost?
— Jim Treacher (@jtLOL) July 30, 2018
Mercatus does solid academic work. Also they're not the first to put that kind of price tag on his plan. https://t.co/WHJ9dImxYq
— Jonah Goldberg (@JonahNRO) July 30, 2018
— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) July 30, 2018
This is the prob with health care journalism.
Powers is an intelligent woman, but she is ignorant of fact that other objective studies, like from the Urban Institute, have similar findings.
She just assumes that this study is biased…because it is from a conservative outlet. https://t.co/DPp64ZDxnN
— Pradheep J. Shanker, M.D., M.S. (@Neoavatara) July 30, 2018
Math is less valid when the Kochs use it.https://t.co/v2OjZfLi32
— Alex Griswold (@HashtagGriswold) July 30, 2018
From the article: "Sanders‚Äô office has not done a cost analysis, a spokesman said. However, the Mercatus estimates are within the range of other cost projections for Sanders‚Äô 2016 plan." https://t.co/oVM6PNT5Ud
— Joe Perticone (@JoePerticone) July 30, 2018
Because it comports with every other study of single-payer in the US ever, even at the state level?
— Matthew DesOrmeaux ‚öú (@authoridad) July 30, 2018
She really swung and missed on this one
— David (@DavidWerwie) July 30, 2018
Because the guy who did the study is widely considered an expert in this field and respected by both sides of the aisle?
— Farah (@FarahBoBeara) July 30, 2018
One more bit of reality:
You'll be sitting around for a long time waiting for a reputable think tank to say Medicare for All is going to be cost efficient. https://t.co/EeChdO8v5q
— Lone Conservative (@LoConservative) July 30, 2018