Jake Tapper Admits CNN "Fact Check" on Medicare for All Was Not Factual

[Hassin Bin Sober]

Jake Tapper Admits CNN “Fact Check” on Medicare for All Was Not Factual

https://truthout.org/articles/jake-tapper-admits-cnn-fact-check-on-medicare-for-all-was-not-factual/


After nearly three days of constant pressure, clear explanations of basic facts, and bit of healthy shaming, CNN‘s Jake Tapper on Sunday finally relented to the sheer force of the evidence and admitted that his Medicare for All “fact check” — which aimed to discredit Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-Vt.) claim that a Koch brothers-funded study showed single-payer would save Americans $2 trillion — was horribly misleading and is in need of a substantial “redo.”


The central falsehood of Tapper’s video segment, which he has now promised to correct, was his conflation of the American people and the US government.

Sanders, New York congressional candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and several policy analysts have pointed out that — according to the Koch-funded Mercatus Center study, authored by Chuck Blahous — the American public would save $2 trillion on healthcare under Sanders’ Medicare for All plan.

Apparently confused by the difference, Tapper declared in his segment: “Is that true? Did a study funded by the Koch brothers indicate that Medicare for All would actually save the US government [emphasis added] trillions of dollars? No.”

Numerous commentators proceeded to point out the error:

[Doodley]

1. You only need to look at healthcare in other developed nations, and

healthcare that leads to better outcomes and better life expectancy to see that so-called "socialized healthcare" would save trillions.

When is Jake Tapper going to report on the suffering and the unnecessary deaths in America because of a healthcare system that is not cost-effective and not fully accessible to all?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

2. I actually saw some clown make the argument the death costs doesn't count because...

... those people will die anyway or we all die.

We lost our collective shit and voted for a war when 3,000 Americans were killed on 9/11. Fifteen times that number die every year due to lack of health care and the best we can do is say so sad too bad.

New study finds 45,000 deaths annually linked to lack of health coverage
Uninsured, working-age Americans have 40 percent higher death risk than privately insured counterparts


https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/09/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/
BY
David Cecere
Cambridge Health Alliance

Nearly 45,000 annual deaths are associated with lack of health insurance, according to a new study published online today by the American Journal of Public Health. That figure is about two and a half times higher than an estimate from the Institute of Medicine (IOM) in 2002.

The study, conducted at Harvard Medical School and Cambridge Health Alliance, found that uninsured, working-age Americans have a 40 percent higher risk of death than their privately insured counterparts, up from a 25 percent excess death rate found in 1993.

“The uninsured have a higher risk of death when compared to the privately insured, even after taking into account socioeconomics, health behaviors, and baseline health,” said lead author Andrew Wilper, M.D., who currently teaches at the University of Washington School of Medicine. “We doctors have many new ways to prevent deaths from hypertension, diabetes, and heart disease — but only if patients can get into our offices and afford their medications.”

The study, which analyzed data from national surveys carried out by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), assessed death rates after taking into account education, income, and many other factors, including smoking, drinking, and obesity. It estimated that lack of health insurance causes 44,789 excess deaths annually.

[George II]

12. I may just be that "clown", thanks for the shout out! So tell me sir, how many times....

.....does one die, and how does GOOD healthcare affect ultimate funeral costs? Does it prevent death? Do people with poor healthcare die two or three times? Are the funeral costs lower?

Whether one dies as a result of poor healthcare or one dies of natural causes, the result is the same - death. Funeral costs are not higher because of poor healthcare than natural causes.

One of the most illogical arguments for "Medicare for All", there really have to be better justifications, don't you agree?

[progressoid]

23. If I have good heathcare, I will likely have more money in my pocket at the end of my life

than if I have had to spend most of my money on out of pocket medical expenses. More money in my pocket means more money for funeral costs and less of a burden on my family. I don't want them to be one of the over 125,000 go fund me campaigns started every year to pay for funeral costs.

Of course funeral costs are not higher because of poor healthcare than natural causes. But one's ability to pay for those funeral costs is affected by poor heathcare coverage. Indeed, reigning in heathcare costs can ease the burden of all of life's other expenses.

[mr_lebowski]

28. There's also the discount rate to account for, money now is more valuable than it is in the future

Given the principal that one can double their invested money every 7-10 years, roughly, based on interest rates, the death cost of someone dying at 60 is roughly double that of someone dying at 67-70, if we assume money they invested was set aside to fully cover their death costs.

It's NOT the biggest/greatest reason for supporting Single-Payer, but it's not insignificant.

[ucrdem]

3. That's ridiculous.

What is the pretzel logic behind pretending that the US govt is not funded by American people? Let me guess, because "the rich" will pick up the tab and "the people" will get the benefits?

On the other hand I wouldn't make the mistake of expecting a lot of truth from Truthout.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

4. Don't look now but someone disagrees with you

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr"><a href="https://twitter.com/BenSpielberg?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@BenSpielberg</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/ryangrim?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@ryangrim</a> Yes, the point made about the “American people” versus “the government” is on point and totally valid so we’re going to redo that part of the video.</p>— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) <a href="

Link to tweet

?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 19, 2018</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

[ucrdem]

5. Note that he's redoing "that part of the video," not retracting it.

The point seems to be that Sanders used "public" and he used "government." It's a completely spurious distinction and I have to wonder what kind of operation is behind this whole thing to make such a mountain out of such an inane molehill.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

6. Is he also standing by his assertion the Koch funded organization, where the Koch's have ...

... hiring and firing authority , isn’t influenced by the Koch brothers?

Completely independent.

[ucrdem]

8. That would be Sanders' assertion.

It was Sanders who decided to use the Koch name to sell his PPACA replacement:

Link to tweet

[Hassin Bin Sober]

9. Lol. You'll notice Bernie thanked the Koch brothers and not their puppet author of the study.

Bernie telling it like it is - that’s why he is the most beloved active politician on the planet.

?itemid=5175846

[ucrdem]

10. Yes, I noticed that.

[George II]

16. Are you really saying that Senator Sanders is aligning himself with the Koch Brothers? REALLY????

[Lordquinton]

22. Today on Poe or not

[George II]

17. Pretty sad that Sanders would align himself with the Koch Brothers, don't you think?

[ucrdem]

18. Really sad. Revealing though.

All kidding aside, if that's the best argument he can make for his plan, it doesn't speak well of his plan.

[JCanete]

26. why do you say its the best argument he can make for his plan? He's made plenty

of arguments for his plan which is why it has continued to gain steam in popularity nation-wide. I have no idea why Medicare-for-All is such a bitter pill for you, but as has been gone over, the reason this is a good use of the Koch study is because their intention was to do the opposite of what they have done....that intention is obvious to the American people at large...and their own study blew up in their face with inconvenient numbers that make the plan actually look good. It would be wasteful and foolish not to use this against the Koch's agenda. Why on earth would you want us to be those things?

[LanternWaste]

33. What leads you to imply it's the best argument he can make? Revealing, indeed...

[JCanete]

25. If that had happened. You know it hasn't happened, and snarkily thanking the Koch's for fucking up

certainly doesn't indicate any kind of alliance. I guess when Trump thanked Obama for leaving all those vacancies(because dems were blocked on all those appointments) that was him aligning with Obama...

Who knew...

[JCanete]

24. He has no business reporting the author of the study's take on what the study says as if it

is fact and then claiming that Sanders and Ocasio Cortez aren't entitled to their own facts. He literally didn't bother to do his own vetting of those facts. He didn't look into the numbers himself. He just took a guy's word for it as if that lazy ass reporting can be counted as fact.

Yeah, he caveats it by saying "at least according to the author..." as if that insulates Tapper in any way when he makes bold claims about the assertions made by Sanders.

Just because he's not retracting the whole piece of shit doesn't mean it shouldn't be fully retracted. What part of it do you stand by?

As to public versus government, yeah the problem you seem to be missing is that tapper is trying to say this isn't going to save the government money, and he can point to government spending increases to say so. However that was never claimed. It would save the American tax payer money. We would just be securing healthcare via tax dollars rather than paying insurance companies.

The study may have a doom and gloom scenario in it, but who cares. Sanders can rightfully quote the numbers the study uses to verify his claims, and none of us trusts that those numbers were arrived at with the best intentions....even Tapper had to admit that numerous times. Nobody is siding with the Koch brothers and that should be obvious to you when Sanders says "thank you Koch brothers for accidentally making our case." That is not aligning with them no matter how hard you squint your eyes.

Have you yourself looked at this study? The assumptions the study makes and the way it frames its findings are agressively misleading, and yet their numbers still do accidentally show that their estimate cost would be lower than what Americans pay for health insurance today, and at that, it would be covering every single person.

And of course they just throw out a lot of bullshit about how conservative their study is. Do they address the value of preventative care in the study? And not just about cost savings, but about its impact on the overall economy? Do they consider productivity benefits, or what about the slight pendulum shift back towards an employee's market since people will not be locked into their positions in order to maintain their healthcare? If that raises wages as an incentive to keep employees, that is more money that gets spent in our economy, rather than siphoned off to some fat-cat shareholders.

[mr_lebowski]

29. HEAR FUCKING HEAR ... very well said ... (nt)

[George II]

13. Yes, he's redoing a few moments of the video, but the rest of the video will be untouched.

Pssst....I DID "look now"!

[Blue_true]

7. When the "Press" does something like that, it makes me want to sit on my hands when Trump attack it.

Trump will use their admission on their Medicare for all hatchet job against them, just wait and see.

[jalan48]

11. Well, well, I guess that answers a few questions about this burning issue here on DU.

On to the next bash!

[George II]

15. No, it only answers just one small question....

....On to John Conyers' bill!

[melman]

19. Looks like the bashfest is moving to the AOC restaurant thread

Apparently she looks too happy in the photo.

[betsuni]

27. Oh melman, nobody said that.

"Looks like she's having a good time" is not "She looks too happy in the photo."

[melman]

32. Oh betsuni

You know perfectly well what was meant by that.

[PaulX2]

14. Thanks For Post

I went round and round this morning saying the same thing.

[Duppers]

20. Yes, thank you.

🙏

[hexola]

21. CNN Sucks

They fuck shit like this up all the time...

Right attitude - bad homework.

[SixString]

30. DU Rec

[mountain grammy]

31. I'm quite sure Jake Tapper has excellent health care coverage.

and these days, that's all that really matters.. I got mine, what's the problem?