Factcheck.org responds to accusations in a tweetstorm from Senator Sanders re: Mercatus study

[ehrnst]

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

.@SenSanders tweetstorm about the video @jaketapper did on M4A as part of our fact-checking collaboration with @CNNSotu was more misleading spin from the senator.

Jake needs no help in defending our partnership, but we stand by everything in our story and the video based on our story.

The facts are getting distorted. As we reported in our story and video, the study did show a $2T savings (table 2) based on the M4A bill’s assumptions. But the study says the assumptions are unrealistic.

To say the study is “making the case for Medicare for All,” as @SenSanders said, is misleading spin.

And to say, as @SenSanders tweeted, that we are putting our “blind faith in a far right-wing economist” is wrong. We took no position on the M4A bill or the study by Charles Blahous of the Mercatus Center study.

In fact, we said in our story, “We’re not suggesting the assumptions made in the Sanders bill are wrong, only that they aren’t Blahous’ assumptions.”…

… And Jake said in the video that we were not making “a judgement on the viability of M4A,” but the presentation of the study by Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez “lacks a lot of context.”


Those are the facts. For the full story, read our story:

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/08/the-cost-of-medicare-for-all/

[dawg day]

1. This is the sort of nonsense that our representatives should refrain from--

nitpicking arguments about minutia. Now we'll get another round from Sanders saying THIS is wrong-- to what purpose is this? Move on, Senator. Claim victory. Talk about something important.

[ehrnst]

3. Unfortunately he doesn't tolerate dissent or any suggestion that he is wrong/mistaken.

Last edited Wed Aug 22, 2018, 10:42 AM - Edit history (1)

It's why many of his supporters like him - they equate being unchanging with being ethical and strong.

"He's as constant as the north star."

I don't think he'll push back on this rebuttal to his accusations.

He'll let his supporters do it.

[JCanete]

17. well if your agenda is to make sure he's wrong and mistaken, do better than this or Tapper's lousy

Last edited Wed Aug 22, 2018, 03:30 PM - Edit history (1)

piece of crap. They fail pretty miserably at the task.

Also, where did you pull that shit about why Sanders supporters like him from? That smacks of "if it sounds like a sick burn use it, who cares how factual, even anecdotally."

[Gothmog]

78. Has Vermont adopted the magical sanders single payer plan yet?

If sanders really is so right on the facts here, then he needs to get Vermont to adopt his magical plan and be able to claim one major legislative accomplishment. Sanders claims that he has the facts that back him up and Vermont is a small homogeneous state where sanders' plan should work if sanders is correct on the facts

We are waiting to see sanders work his magic

[questionseverything]

236. spoken like someone who has medical care

states cant run deficits so the state argument is moot

I am happy for those of you that already have medical care but some of us have not forgotten the 20-60 million that still need it

2 things need to happen

first costs must be minimized

second the insurance peops have to give up the millions they make insuring the young and healthy

no one knows exactly how the costs would line up but since we can run deficits to support the orange ones golf resorts....we shouldn't worry about balancing the budget over peoples LIVES

[Gothmog]

237. But this plans pays for itself according to sanders

If this plan is workable, then try it out in Vermont

[questionseverything]

240. as i said...you have an"i got mine attitude"

states cant do it separately because they cant control the costs

I am glad Bernie hasnt forgotten us

[ehrnst]

126. Actually, he is mistaken about what the study concluded, as per the author, and misrepresented what

factcheck.or was saying.

And to say, as @SenSanders tweeted, that we are putting our “blind faith in a far right-wing economist” is wrong. We took no position on the M4A bill or the study by Charles Blahous of the Mercatus Center study.

In fact, we said in our story, “We’re not suggesting the assumptions made in the Sanders bill are wrong, only that they aren’t Blahous’ assumptions.”

I don't need to assume anything about Factcheck.orgs' statements - they were there in black and white, and Bernie misrepresented them.

Perhaps he didn't think that his fans would bother to read the original article? Or that they would trust him about what they wrote more than they would the words in the article itself?

In fact, we said in our story, “We’re not suggesting the assumptions made in the Sanders bill are wrong, only that they aren’t Blahous’ assumptions.”…

from the actual Factcheck.org piece - and they actually contacted the author of the study on Sander's public statements on the conclusions of the study:

Said Blahous: “If you ask somebody ‘How much would something cost?’ and if they responded with, ‘Well, if you assume X the cost would be Y, but that’s an unrealistic assumption, actual costs would be higher’ – It’s not accurate to say ‘He says the cost is Y!’ When I wrote that ‘actual costs’ would be higher, I meant it. And I haven’t simply said that in response to comments like the candidate’s – I had previously put it front and center on the study itself.”

“Proponents are perfectly free to argue for those provider cuts and to say that THEY believe M4A will therefore lower national health spending, — and also to cite whatever data they want in support of their arguments, from any study they find credible,” Blahous told us. “What they shouldn’t say is that I also reached that conclusion, because that’s incorrect. That finding should not be attributed to me or to my study.”

So, if you want to say that Blahous can't be trusted to know or report his own conclusions of the study, how can Sanders say, and you believe, that the author's study is valid enough to be presented as evidence that "supports M4A" in his fundraising email?

I have yet to hear anyone who is up in arms at the very idea that anyone would contradict Senator Sanders explain that.

[heaven05]

18. everyone is wrong

sometimes and I judge their character on how they handle that fact...so far a lot fail the integrity and principle test. People who don't tolerate dissent are not my type of person. Hell, in our Party we tolerate a lot of dissent from minor factions. May not like the source but it's tolerated, debated, discussed and as usual is found to be lacking substance and/or original thought.

[JCanete]

20. okaaay but push-back on a bullshit hit-piece is not not tolerating dissent. It is correcting the

record. What exactly would not tolerating dissent even look like in this case? Sanders has taken the content of the "factcheck" to task, not the existence of factcheck. How on earth do you arrive at this kind of framing?

[heaven05]

22. the OP

says everything true, that needs to be said. I arrive at my framing after carefully reading about and understanding dissent. I also watch others who do not allow dissent and/or truth to get in their way of their BS. Truth is hell sometimes, isn't it

[JCanete]

24. You did not make an argument supported by evidence here. What does not tolerating dissent look like?

Pushback on shoddy reporting? Even if it was pushback on the results of good reporting you would call that not tolerating dissent?

[heaven05]

26. you're entitled

to try to further any stance you deem as correct concerning anyone you may want to protect. The truth is there for me. That's all I need. Have a good one

[R B Garr]

25. So true! I'm seeing it in other topics. The very mild vetting of the touted policies

has resulted in a lot of denial and anger. Very mild vetting.

[heaven05]

27. I know it's amazing

[Hortensis]

64. Denial. And the ruthlessly anti-progressive Kochs?

New BFFs? I suggested to someone that any study the Kochs supported should be examined with a very cool eye. Received like a ball bouncing off a wall.

[R B Garr]

76. Exactly. Who would trust a single thing a partisan

billionaire produced. It is absurd to even take a bite of that apple, and he is the one who has declared billionaires to be pariahs.

[NCTraveler]

2. I think Sanders propaganda would be more accepted if he simply said...

“I’m not running for President.”

There are a lot of people like me who greatly appreciate the propaganda he is pushing yet recognize the horrors of possibly electing a career politician with extremely few accomplishments and an extremely checkered history.

[ehrnst]

12. I think if he just learned to accept corrections or dissent gracefully

instead of digging in and going after people/orgs for doing so, he might have gotten more people to listen to him.

But many of his fans love him for doing just that.

[PaulX2]

31. When You Tell The Truth And Never Sell Out

You get a lot of supporters. Millions.

Tell it like it is Bernie.

For almost twice as much per citizen we are number 29 worldwide in overall health care.

Bernie is right. For profit scam care isn't working. Obamacare only scratched the surface.

[dansolo]

35. Tell the truth? What about his tax returns? n/t

[emulatorloo]

90. "Bernie Goes Full...Trump? Blames Hillary For Russian Interference"

Bernie Goes Full…Trump? Blames Hillary For Russian Interference

https://thedailybanter.com/issues/2018/02/22/bernie-goes-full-trump-blames-hillary-for-russian-interference/

[ehrnst]

120. Everybody is wrong but BERNIE!!!!

He has never been wrong, and will never be wrong, and anyone who says that he is wrong, and is just jealous and is a HATER.

Stop attacking him with factchecking!! He IS Medicare for All!!! Any critique of Bernie is an assault on M4A, and vice verca?

Why don't you people want HEALTH CARE FOR EVERYONE??????

That seems to sum up a few of the posters here, doesn't it?

[NCTraveler]

94. I imagine that's a big part of why...

He fell millions of supporters shy when running nationally. Solid point.

[ehrnst]

117. When you are caught misrepresenting something and you never admit it

then double down and go on the defensive, you are not "telling it like it is."

Bernie was actually very wrong about what the study said. And sadly, he is blowing his chance to show that he has the ability to learn and tolerate any sort of dissent.

See also: Trump and his fans.

[Cha]

127. Thank You, ehrnst! Jeeze!

"Telling it like it is.." smdh!

[ecstatic]

139. The ability to learn and QUICKLY adapt to new information

is super important. Time and time again, Bernie has demonstrated his inability to absorb new information and make necessary changes--even when lives hang in the balance (e.g., the VA debacle).

[NurseJackie]

13. few and checkered... thank you.

[rzemanfl]

4. Bookmarking. n/t

[comradebillyboy]

5. Factcheck.org has a lot more credibility than the Senator

in my opinion.

[ehrnst]

6. Certainly after his outsized response to his claims about the Mercatus study being factchecked. (nt)

[PaulX2]

34. Some Can't Handle The Truth

Keep telling it like it is Bernie.

Even if they fear your message of fairness and opportunity for the non billionaires.

The richest country in the wored could easily give every citizen healthcare.

Too bad non billionaires have little say in legislation.....

[ehrnst]

96. I think that those who got their knickers in a knot over Bernie being factchecked

are the ones who can't handle the truth.

But by all means, please keep getting the vapors and claiming that this is about factcheck.org, Politifact and WAPO, "Fearing the message of fairness and opportunity for the non billionaires."

The drama....

[PaulX2]

105. Some Of Us Want More Than Crumbs

[ehrnst]

107. What does that have to do with Sanders and AOC misrepresenting the conclusions of the study?

Does misrepresenting something give you something? Whatever it is that is "more than crumbs" you vaguely communicated?

Do you prefer being given something less than the facts, if it makes you feel better about a politician?

That's what Trump supporters seem to think. We're better than that here.

Or is that a line from a play you're in?

[ehrnst]

161. Got nothing? Not surprised.

[George II]

131. "Too bad non billionaires have little say in legislation"?

There isn't a single billionaire Senator or Representative. THEY are responsible for legislation.

[Beearewhyain]

7. We are all gonna die

[TexasTowelie]

15. I didn't realize it back then,

but Harry & Louise bear some resemblance to Bill & Hillary as Bill's hair was starting to turn gray.

[emulatorloo]

103. Hllarious thanks for posting!

[George II]

8. We'll be hearing "truth isn't truth" a lot in the coming months.

[GeorgeGist]

9. FactCheck should stick to checking facts ...

and not debating assumptions.

[George II]

10. They didn't debate assumptions, they added more facts to their fact checking.

[JCanete]

29. what facts were those? nt

[ehrnst]

11. Fact checking is what they did:They checked the facts on Sanders' claims about what the study said.

They weren't debating the assumptions of the report/bill - Only if Sanders' assumptions actually matched the assumptions of the author of the study.

Perhaps you missed this:

In fact, we said in our story, “We’re not suggesting the assumptions made in the Sanders bill are wrong, only that they aren’t Blahous’ assumptions.”…

They went to the author of the study, and the author explained why Sanders misrepresented the study in his claims that they validated his cost/savings analysis.

They made no assumptions about the validity of the study, they concerned themselves only with the accuracy Sanders' statements on what the study concluded.

Sanders accused factcheck.org with "agreeing with the study" and they are correcting his claims about that now.

Is that clearer?

[JCanete]

28. Well that is outright stupid. They know that Sanders is using a specific instance of the study and

how he is using it and why he is entirely entitled to do so. He took a piece out of it that is basically saying..."even if Sanders assumptions are correct this would....uh....save us 2 trillion dollars...BUT IT WOULD RAISE GOVERNMENAT SPENDING!"

They fucked up and said it. They fucked up and crunched THOSE numbers. Sanders doesn't have to speak to the whole study and why would he? The study isn't to be trusted. That factcheck is making it its job to point out what the study wants to say in order to paint Sanders as spinning it is a pathetic use of its resources.

"to say that the study is making the case for medicare for all is misleading spin...." Oh good fucking grief. Do they know what getting hoisted by one's own petard even means? Tell me you don't think that's hilarious given the snarky way Sanders has been saying this study supports Medicare-for-All. They want us to believe that Sanders was claiming the whole study was in support of it? That that was his spin that they are dutifully correcting? Are you fucking kidding me?

[lapucelle]

71. Because the BS bill has no funding provisions,

assumptions are necessarily made. That's why the study discussed two possible outcomes that are equally likely.

In the real world, funding details are important. That's why most serious people include them in well-crafted legislation. John Conyers's HR 676 is the bill that medicare for all advocates have been fighting for for 15 years.

How is the BS bill S1804 going to be funded? Here's what the bill itself has to say:



The Mercatus study uses the BS bill as it was written (making the most favorable assumptions possible) as a basis for it's cost projections. Because BS's S1804 in no way addresses funding, it fails to answer a very important question: "How are we going to pay for this?" Because the BS bill does not address funding, different scenarios are possible. The fault lies with the bill, not with the study.

HR 676 is fully funded. It's a better bill. We need a senate version.

http://www.medicareforall.org/pages/HR676#toc

[Gothmog]

14. Facts are good things

[JCanete]

16. So what are they saying? That was all over the place. They aren't saying Sanders assumptions are

wrong, but they really want to drive home that the study says these assumptions that it then used to try to frame government spending out of control, is unrealistic. Which is it? And who gives a flying fuck about the author of the study's bending over backwards to make the story say one thing or another? Its the numbers he crunched that are being used against his own agenda.

Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez have every right to take that number out of the context of the overall tone of the hit-piece that does nothing else but make assumptions and to use that data and say "see, you're aim sucks and Medicare-for-All is still standing."

So factcheck stands by Tapper saying...."No that's not true... ... ... ... ... ... "at least according to the study's author." hahahahha
I guess that speaks to the depth of their own factchecking doesn't it. This effort to support factcheck's nonsense is embarrassing, especially when the extent of their effort seems to be intended to do nothing more than to say "but that's not what the author of the study meant to do...." well tough shit.

Or do they stand by Tapper's framing of Medicare-for-all as not saving the government money, which was never claimed and is exactly the same bullshit the study itself was trying to frame the issue as? So factcheck works for...the facts?

[TheBlackAdder]

19. These similar OPs are starting to become mini echo chambers, with the same respondents.

[R B Garr]

21. Everything I see is dated recently. August 2018 or thereabout. nt

[stranger81]

141. "Starting" to become? They've been self-congratulatory mini-echo chambers for at least 2 years.

Same tiny handful of extremely vociferous posters who lose their noodles whenever anyone in the party, or even associated with the party, suggests we might want to consider addressing economic inequality at some point. Unfortunately, there's a contingent here that lashes out at that concept on the regular no matter who the messenger is.

And that's part of why we can't have nice things.

[betsuni]

143. "Same tiny handful of extremely vociferous posters who lose their noodles whenever anyone

in the party, or even anyone associated with the party, suggests we might want to consider addressing economic inequality at some point."

Talking point: Democrats don't care about economic inequality, are the party of the one percent.

[stranger81]

144. Not **all** democrats are indifferent to economic inequality issues.

A good 45% of our big tent at least, maybe more.

But the small group of posters who flood these threads like clockwork are, sadly, not among them.

[betsuni]

156. Wrong.

But go ahead and insult the Democratic base.

[R B Garr]

177. Two years ago is when Sanders lost. I'm so glad that two years later we have

the tenacity to finally question. It's about time. His group's losses have been adding up, which also shows that voters don't fully accept his ideas, or at least they don't accept that the Democrats are to blame for it all. There is more to the Democratic party than one man, and nothing wrong with others being included in the discussions.

[ucrdem]

23. There's an old story about a wooden horse

left at the gates of Troy. I guess the Senator missed that class?

[Wwcd]

32. + a million ..The oldest story on the books. BUYER BEWARE

Thanks to FACTCHECK, for calling out the Spin.

[ucrdem]

40. Bingo. And in case anyone still doesn't get it

we have a new Rathergate underway to clinch the deal.

[Wwcd]

30. "To say the study is "making the case for Medicare for All," as @SenSanders said, is misleading spin

"..the presentation of the study by Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez “lacks a lot of context.”

Yup. BUYER BEWARE.

[JCanete]

41. What context do we need here? When Sanders says " I'd like to thank the Koch brothers of all people

for accidentally making the case for Medicare-for-All..." you think that's called spin? That's not spin. That's hitting the Koch's over the head with a weapon they supplied Sanders in the numbers they crunched. Nobody could read or listen to what Sanders has said about this study and think that what he is saying is that the study's language makes the case for Medicare-for-All. Did you think that? Were you a 'buyer' of that? Cuz nobody was selling it.

This was simple Judo disguised as nothing else. The Koch's fucked up and said "even if Sanders assumptions are right....wait..."
And sanders has used that righteously. And yet here, on DU of all places, we have posters breathlessy defending factcheck and tapper for breathlessly defending the intent of a Koch funded author who meant to paint a Universal Healthcare proposal in a negative light.

What the fuck gives?

[lapucelle]

81. The study presents two scenarios based on BS's assumptions.

One is helpful in making the case for Medicare for All; the other isn't. Both are equally likely.

One of the reasons why medicare for all advocates have been for fighting for Conyers's HR 676 for the past 15 years is because it is funded in detail and accounts for both negative and positive externalities. It is carefully crafted legislation.

(c) Funding-

(1) IN GENERAL- There are appropriated to the Medicare for All Trust Fund amounts sufficient to carry out this Act from the following sources:

[NOTE: the following part of H.R. 676 describes only one idea for the funding. After sufficient support is established in the U.S. House of Representatives, many funding options will likely be debated. It will be important for some citizens to monitor the progress and give input at that time. In the meantime, any ideas or wishes you have for funding should be sent by letter in the U.S. Mail to your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators.]

(A) Existing sources of Federal government revenues for health care.
(B) Increasing personal income taxes on the top 5 percent income earners.
(to do: need to communicate what level of income this means)
(C) Instituting a modest and progressive excise tax on payroll and self-employment income.
[Current Medicare tax: 1.45% paid by employers and employees.]
(D) Instituting a modest tax on unearned income.
[This is an additional source of funding … added to the H.R. 676 that was proposed in the previous session of Congress. The expected percentage is not yet available. H.R. 676 will not be given an economic evaluation by the Congressional Budget Office until it gets to at least 100 cosponsors<.]
(E) Instituting a small tax on stock and bond transactions.


(2) SYSTEM SAVINGS AS A SOURCE OF FINANCING- Funding otherwise required for the Program is reduced as a result of–
(A) vastly reducing paperwork
[Elimination of unnecessary administrative activities within all of our health care bureaucracy]
[for-profit bureaucracy]
[government bureaucracy]
[supporting bureaucracy that results from the other two types of bureauracracy and the overall negative situation that they cause]
[ Go to Costs and Savings for more information.]

(B) requiring a rational bulk procurement of medications under section 205(a).
(C) improved access to preventive health care.
(3) ADDITIONAL ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS TO MEDICARE FOR ALL PROGRAM- Additional sums are authorized to be appropriated annually as needed to maintain maximum quality, efficiency, and access under the Program.

There's no need to reinvent the wheel that John Conyers invented in 2003. What we need is a senate version of this bill.

http://www.medicareforall.org/pages/HR676
http://www.medicareforall.org/pages/S1804
http://www.medicareforall.org/pages/Bernie_Sanders

[JCanete]

89. Both arent' equally likely, and one of the reasons for that is how much inforamtion the study does

not include in its research. I appreciate though that you put so much stock in the Koch funded study's worst-case scenario, and remind you that Sanders pointing out that some of the study's own numbers accidentally validate his claims, is NOT buying into the study's results.

As to whether we should be supporting the Conyers plan, well who is pushing for it in the Senate and Congress? By all means, I will absolutely support such a bill. We can figure out which one is better and implement that. This isn't about the Conyers plan being better though. This certainly wasn't a niggling point that Tapper and factcheck.org wanted to dig into. I don't hear about Conyers plan mentioned anywhere but here, -AND THAT ONLY- when the point is to undermine Sander's proposal. Who are our leaders in congress and the Senate right now, that are going to bat for that Conyers plan? How much air time is it getting? How much magnification are our Democratic leaders giving it?

If people want me to take them seriously here that their inention is actually to get us closer to Medicare-for-All, Singlepayer, etc. then I suggest none of us do what is happening in this thread, which is to run to defend a fairly shoddy journalistic effort by Tapper and Factcheck.org intended to inform the people that Sanders is spinning a Koch funded study to mean something they didn't want it to mean. Boo hoo...their fucking numbers. And they made a mistake. They tried to change the framework. If they didnt' think they were being damaging with that set of numbers they released, I very much doubt they would have seen the light of day. They thought THEY would spin the information to make it look like exhorbinant government spending. Which is why its totally fair game to use it against them.

[lapucelle]

98. No one is pushing for the Conyers plan in the Senate.

S1804 was introduced by Senator Bernie Sanders in September 2017 for the 2017-2018 session of the U.S. Congress.

It is not an exact equivalent of H.R. 676. U.S. House Resolution 676. It is not even based on H.R. 676 as a starting point.

H.R. 676 is widely considered by universal health care advocates to be the "gold standard" for the desired content of a Medicare for All bill in either the U.S. House or U.S. Senate.

The universal health care movement needs a U.S. Senator to sponsor a Senate bill that is an equivalent of H.R. 676.

snip========================

WHAT IS NEEDED. A U.S. Senator who will introduce an equivalent to H.R. 676 into the U.S. Senate, such as during the 115th Congress in 2018 or during the first quarter of 2019 of the 116th Congress (2019-2020).

STATUS. There are no plans to spend time posting more information about [BS's S1804] or the confusion that it creates.

http://www.medicareforall.org/pages/S1804

[JCanete]

102. Well where are they? I'll take what we have over what we don't. I certainly won't use

"the perfect as the enemy of the good." Weird that that's suddenly a good argument for people here.

[ehrnst]

110. Well, I certainly like it when a politician is honest.

And when they are called out on a mistake, doubling down and going on the attack doesn't give them credibility.

See also Trump.

[JCanete]

118. You haven't shown a mistake. Neither has Tapper or factcheck. you just keep repeating it as

if that has any weight at all but it relies on a very flimsily constructed characterization of Sanders use of the study. I'd suggest you get off that thing...its crumbling.

[lapucelle]

124. I don't know why BS didn't model his bill on HR 676.

While he wasn't an original co-sponsor when he was in Congress, he did sign on to HR 676 a few months after it was first introduced.

Many are hoping that a Democratic senator will introduce a senate version in the next session of Congress. In addition, the organization Medicare for All has reached out to Senator Sanders, asking for his support.

http://www.medicareforall.org/pages/Bernie_Sanders

[lapucelle]

190. "So while the number Sanders chose really does appear in the report, he's cherry-picked

the more flattering of two estimates."

Our ruling

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.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/aug/03/bernie-s/did-conservative-study-show-big-savings-bernie-san/

[Squinch]

33. Whenever Democrats bicker, Sanders is always at the base of it.

[JCanete]

37. Why are we bickering on supporting medicare for all? That's not on him. nt

[Squinch]

38. Yes it is. There is no one on this thread who does not support universal healthcare.

No one. This is about Sanders. Nothing else.

[JCanete]

43. I don't think you are correct about that actually, from converations I've had here in the past.

Second, when people run to the defense of organizations and pundits who themselves are running to the defense of the assumptions made in a Koch funded study, itself designed to cripple efforts towards universal healthcare, then obviously we have a difference of opinion on how to actually achieve a thing.

The whole gist of the complaint about Sanders using the study's numbers is that "well the study didn't want to say that, what it really meant to say was...." This is nuts. Why are we in the business of trying to say for the Koch brothers what they have plenty of money to say on their own? Why are we trying instead to rebalance what accidental reporting in that study unbalanced? Why does this make sense to you?

[Squinch]

52. Show where anyone here has ever not supported universal healthcare.

The study didn't show what Sanders wants it to show and says it shows. Sorry. Why are you insisting different?

And notice: this discussion is not about universal healthcare. It is about how Sanders interpreted a study.

[emulatorloo]

95. Strawman. You are surrounded by left liberals/progressives at DU who support healthcare as a right.

DU’ers are not “bickering” about the importance of universal healthcare. That’s a strawman argument.

Sounds to me like Senator Sanders embraced the Mercatus study before he read it fully. Probably time for him to move on and not belabor this anymore.

[JCanete]

104. No, he never embraced it. Taht's factually incorrect. Taking something out of a hostile

study that accidentally supports your argument is not at all what you just said. There's plenty of evidence for exactly how Sanders is using the study in his rhetoric that references it.

As to whether or not we all want universal healthcare, ARE YOU SURE? What is the means of achieving that? When Feinstein, a favorite here, says she does not believe in working towards that at this time, is that being in favor of universal healthcare? What pray tell, is her means of assuring that everybody is covered? That may be a perfectly legitimate way of viewing the world and healthcare worth argument, but don't try to pretend we are all on the same page. We are not.

[emulatorloo]

109. He should declare victory and move on IMHO. He should focus on M4A, not twitter wars

He should be above all that.


“As to whether or not we all want universal healthcare, ARE YOU SURE? What is the means of achieving that? When Feinstein, ”

Is Feinstein a member of DU? No.

Please stop with the strawmen and the gishgallop.

[JCanete]

115. People hear a fact check and they take its word for things. YOu have to push back against wrong

information in the public sphere. Why would you ever suggest that people should just move on and not correct the record?

[ehrnst]

247. That sort of thing can make one look vindictive, rather than secure.

Especially if there is a history of it.

[JCanete]

251. That doesn't make any sense. Its vindictive to challenge the veracity or tone of an article or

personality, really?

[ehrnst]

254. When one lashes out angrily with misrepresentations of

valid and nuetral factchecking as "putting blind faith in a far right-wing economist," yes.

I understand that he was using that as a fundraising ask, and it is a re-election year, so that could have exacerbated his anger. The potential to lose those donations is understandably upsetting. When one has such an outsized reaction to respected factchecking orgs, that's not a sign that is one is secure in one's own accuracy. Certainly we see that in the current president. By contrast recall Obama's reaction when pummelled with actual biased and right wing accusations of a fake birth certificate.

Not the first time Sanders has reacted badly to being disagreed with during a re-election year.

In 1998, then Representative Bernie Sanders cosponsored and actively ushered a bill through Congress that would allow Vermont and Maine to dump their nuclear waste in the poor disadvantaged Hispanic community of Sierra Blanca, Texas.

Three West Texan protestors went to Vermont to plead with then Representative Sanders that the dump site shouldn't be located in this poor minority community, Mr. Sanders told the three activists, "My position is unchanged and you’re not going to like it.” When asked if he would at least visit the proposed site in Sierra Blanca, he said: “Absolutely not. I'm gonna to be running for re-election in the state of Vermont."

[JCanete]

255. The factchecking did that. I'm sorry. That's what it did. I never claimed that it is agreeing

with the study's conclusions. What factcheck IS doing is trying to agree with the author about what those conclusions are, except that the author's conclusions are in his numbers. They're right there in the abstract. How can factcheck and tapper agree with the author when the author is literally contradicted by his own findings?

I'll make you a deal. If you don't ignore that question this time around, I'll continue to respond. Otherwise, we're both just spinning our wheels.

[ehrnst]

246. All Democrats are on the same page concerning Universal Health Care

They are for it. We are the party who passed the ACA, which is universal health care, and is in process.

It's in the party platform - you may want to read it sometime.

https://www.democrats.org/party-platform#universal-health

As Europe shows, there are many ways to get to UHC, most with a combination of public private partnerships and multiple payers.

Single Payer is one way, not the only way, to get to Universal Health Care, unlike what some people have convinced themselves. If you have made M4A your brand, then it's a priority to push it, not matter how other more implemental strategies might work better, and get more people covered affordably sooner.

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/9/8/16271888/health-care-single-payer-aca-democratic-agendahttps://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/9/8/16271888/health-care-single-payer-aca-democratic-agenda

Unlike those not in the Democratic Party, Democrats have always been "on the same page" in considering health care specific to women an actual health issue, instead of relegating it a "social issue."

[ehrnst]

248. "What pray tell, is her means of assuring that everybody is covered?"

Pray tell, Google "The Affordable Care Act." You may be shocked to learn her role in it, and her continuing defense of it.

Really.

You may also be shocked to learn that the ACA is indeed a "universal health care" plan.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/its-not-obamacare-anymore-its-our-national-health-care-system/2017/07/28/1a6583fe-73d3-11e7-9eac-d56bd5568db8_story.html

[JCanete]

250. ACA is not 100 percent coverage. There is no mechanism that could make it so. What acocunts for it

being universal? I don't have healthcare right now. I'm paying the penalty because its cheaper. I'd prefer to have healthcare.

[ehrnst]

257. Again, you don't seem to understand what "universal health care" means.

Or incremental implementation.

But I understand now why you are so angry and emotional about the topic, and have difficulty understanding some of the concepts. I assume you don't live in Massachusetts, where 97% of people are covered, and has almost acheived universal health care :

https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2017/09/12/number-uninsured-mass-continues-fall/wXq3VXKfENdWjzWIYhrRLN/story.html

The ACA is a plan to get everyone access to affordable health care.

It did not happen all at once. It was not meant to happen all at once. There was no way it could happen all at once.

Again - Social Security did not cover what it does now when it started. The health plans in other countries did not start out covering what they do now, in the era of medical technology that we are in now. Many still don't cover dental, eyeglasses or prescriptions. They were gradually expanded, and costs were managed, not slashed.

As you may recall, things were phased in. The GOP has kneecapped and crippled parts of it. Medicare expansion was supposed to cover many more, and further bring down costs over the years because people who hadn't had access would.

You may remember that SCOTUS struck down the requirement that states expand Medicaid. GOP states knew that people not being covered would create more anger at the ACA, so they refused the federal money that would have paid for the majority of the costs for the first few years, while people got medical care, got healthier and the cost of covering them became less.

And yes, to get many people covered, some people would not be able to get access to the very low cost, high deductible plans anymore. Many contractors or small business owners make too much to qualify for the subsidies on the state marketplaces, and have to pay full price. Because of the uncertainty of what will be happening under Trump, many insurance companies pulled out of the state exchanges, which has driven up some prices.

However, even with all the kneecapping that the GOP is still doing, 30 million more people are covered who were not before. I understand that you are angry about your situation, so those 30 million aren't really relevant to you.

To say that these is the fault of the Democrats is not accurate. To say that Pelosi hasn't or isn't doing anything to move universal health care forward is not accurate.

I understand that your anger at Democratic leaders works to the benefit of other politicians, so they have a stake in that anger.

It can make a voter a tool to further their own ambitions.

[JCanete]

260. oh man....I don't have a beef with the ACA. I'm glad it passed. I'm glad it has survived. It is

better than what we had. But 97 percent is not universal healthcare as far as I would be comfortable with the term, nor do I agree that plans with massive gaps in coverage count as universal healthcare. If something happens and you weren't covered for it, you don't have healthcare for that thing that happened to you. If this is the kind of universal you want to cite so that you can say all democrats are for Universal Healthcare....well I guess, by that definition....you're right? Good on you?

I agree that the goal of Obamacare is to expand coverage and make incremental inroads. I think its done that in that it has helped make the argument that goverment mandated coverage options is a good thing. No preexisting conditions is a good thing. But why drag our feet and demand only incremental changes when we could use the fact that the American people by and large, and this includes a majority of republicans, want Medicare-for-All?

[ehrnst]

261. Now do you understand that the ACA is indeed the furthest along the road to UHC that we

have ever gotten?

But why drag our feet and demand only incremental changes when we could use the fact that the American people by and large, and this includes a majority of republicans, want Medicare-for-All?

You still don't get why incremental change is the only way to do this.....

If you are going to pave all the roads in a city, do you do it all at once? Yeah, we would get the new roads sooner, but it would be way more expensive, and way more disruptive than "dragging our feet" and doing it a few at a time.

Again.... If you had any knowledge of the countries who have UHC, you know that they didn't do it all at once. Most started 70 years ago. And they started from scratch, they weren't upending a system that was already baked in... if you actually read my posts before firing off an angry reply, you would not be asking me this. Social Security didn't start out covering what it does now.

Again.... Massachusetts has achieved 97% coverage - that is closer to Universal Health Coverage than any other state. They do it through a combination of payers and providers. Again....... if you paid attention to my other posts, you would know that Canada didn't go federally single payer until the individual provinces did so independently - which took nearly 20 years. Then a very liberal federal administration came in an added a federal layer over that - they were STILL tweaking it in the 1990s. No one 'demanded" incremental change - that's just the way it has to happen. There is a saying in project management - Cheap, fast or good, pick two. Promising affordable, fast and good is an empty promise, no matter how well intentioned and sincere. M4A promises all this in eight years. Not gonna happen. Health care delivery would be disrupted - horribly. You can't turn a battleship on a dime without capsizing it.

And what people think M4A is, and what it actually is, are two different things, so before you go claiming that "the American people, by and large" want it, you should confirm that's true:

A recent poll from Kaiser Family Foundation illustrates the point. It showed that 59 percent of Americans support “a national health-care plan, or Medicare-for-all, in which all Americans would get their insurance from a single government plan.” Sounds pretty strong, until you see that 75 percent support a “national Medicare-for-all plan open to anyone who wants it but people who currently have other coverage could keep what they have.” The first proposal is single-payer if you understand it. The second very clearly isn’t single-payer.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/05/voters-who-like-medicare-for-all-may-not-like-single-payer.html

So, a much bigger percentage of people want something more like what the ACA is on target to be than single payer.

And in case you ignored this in my posts - I had single payer in the UK. I loved it. I came back to the states, and I wound up in the hospital with two bleeding ulcers, uninsured. I WISH we could have it here. I was without health insurance for years - my only care provider was Planned Parenthood, which some people are clueless enough dismiss as "an establishment group," and others demonize as "as the abortion industry."

You are laboring under the delusion that I just hate the idea of single payer. AGAIN... I have more of a background in health policy than most people, so I don't have the luxury of ignorance on the topic. I understand the obstacles - moral or immoral/right or wrong/establishment or progressive/capitalist or socialist - but very real obstacles that are not being addressed in M4A.

I want whatever gets the most people covered in the quickest amount of time - I don't adhere to any dogma about how we get there. You know what dogma does for religion? Well, it does that for politics as well. I never have been one for tribal thinking, and therefore am not limited by it.

That's what hobbles people who think that getting rid of Planned Parenthood is the only way to reduce or eliminate abortion. And it's hobbling those who think that M4A is the only way to get UHC.

I've been called "baby hater!" for escorting outside women's clinics. Calling me a Koch Bros agent or "health care hater" won't faze me. I'll listen to what health policy experts say before politicians or angry people who cling to dogma. I will not change my mind on human fueled climate change until such time as the scientific consensus changes, no matter who is "for or against" it, no matter what industries "wind, fuel cell, solar) benefit. I changed my mind on the efficacy of certain supplements when studies didn't support their claims - despite my mother insisting that "big pharma" was behind those studies.

You are talking to someone who is used to challenging their own assumptions when new data comes in.

[JCanete]

262. That's right, I don't get why incremental change is the only way to do this.

Single Payer is an overhaul. How does that even get achieved incrementally?

that said, incremental change is preferable to nothing, and I think possible, if we either maul the republicans and have a supermajority or we threaten them with large change once we've managed a majority in both house's and taken the White House. Personally I think presenting large change is how you get that majority or that supermajority, and how you hold it, and I think that incremental change is what you get when you force the Republicans to come to and grovel at the table, which they will do if they see the writing on the wall of could be potentially dramatic changes that affect their donors. Taking big change off the table does us no favors...gives us zero republican votes. We kind of have a test case for that.

I agree that every step the ACA makes towards universal coverage, though it still wouldn't be that in my book, makes universal healthcare more possible, but again, the way you continue to make inroads is by fighting loudly for the grandest, most idealistic ideas, and then compromising with a couple GOP defectors on a half-measure instead.

[ehrnst]

264. Ted Kennedy regrets that he didn't compromise in 1972.

He brought Single Payer to Nixon then, and Nixon wanted a compromise.

Democratic colleagues told him to not accept anything short of Single Payer. Ted Kennedy walked away.

He said in his later years if he had compromised, then we might have something much closer to what Canada has now.

My problem with Sanders is that he doesn't compromise. He has convinced people that any compromise on his M4A should be unacceptable, and any politician who suggests it is "against universal health care." You are exhibit one, you have to admit. That kind of politician, in 1972, lost us the chance to have something much, much better than we have now. I think that Sanders would try to discredit any politician who even suggests that he compromise if it actually gets to the table. Your vision of

but again, the way you continue to make inroads is by fighting loudly for the grandest, most idealistic ideas, and then compromising

with a couple GOP defectors on a half-measure instead.

will NEVER be acceptable to Senator Sanders.

I think that Obama should have asked for more up front - but I don't think he had the experience and stomach to reach under the table to twist a few (like LBJ did to get Medicare/Medicaid), and that worried me from the start. He also had to think about every single black POTUS candidate in the future, and if he came off as an 'angry black man' all other future black male candidates would be judged by that.

He didn't even have a health care plan in place during his campaign - Kaiser Family Foundation asked all the 2008 POTUS candidates to present their plan, then face 45 minutes of questions on it by a panel of health policy experts, health care journalists and the president of the Hospital association. HRC, McCain, Edwards, Biden, Kucinich and Richardson participated. Obama declined.

I was in the audience for all of those presentations. All of them were incremental. Anyone with any understanding of economics, construction or project management knows you don't upend anything that big quickly, because disruption and damage ensues.

(See also: the too hasty rollout of the ACA website exchanges. Obama wanted it up by December, because he wanted people on it as long as possible by the midterms - understandable, but it gave the GOP ammunition to say that the ACA was being bungled from the outset.)

Hillary had much more fleshed out on how her plan would be funded, not surprisingly. She also said that she learned some things from the failure of the 1993 effort. Among them was that they kept saying "We'll cover the uninsured, we'll cover the uninsured." But they didn't talk enough about what would happen with people who had insurance - they didn't address their fears adequately, and that left an opening for those who were opposed to it to stoke those fears. She included a public option in her new plan, and stated up front that coverage benefits would not extend to those who were undocumented. I imagine that was a practical decision, and protected the plan from being attacked by the GOP as "taking your money and giving aid to illegals."

LBJ had to lie about Medicare and Medicaid cost because he knew he couldn't get it passed with the cost projections. You cannot do that now that we have the CBO. You can fudge, and be vague about how it's funded for awhile , but at some point you have to accurately crunch the numbers, and the CBO is the final arbiter.

Another analysis of Sanders' claims in the M4A, by slightly left leaning think tank found that Sanders' numbers were short on what it would cost taxpayers, and underestimated the disruption to health care delivery if it was implemented in 8 years. He lashed out at them too. Not a good sign about what he would do if it gets to the CBO unchanged and they find differently than he does. And that will give the GOP all the ammunition they need to discredit him and therefore it, like they did with "You can keep your health care policy!"

My other concern is that Sanders never admits that he makes any mistakes - he lashes out whenever one is pointed out, be it his math on delegates or his accuracy on what a study represents. I see no such ability to change and adapt his plan.

[PaulX2]

36. Healthcare Is A Right

Thank you Bernie for all your lifetime of hard work FOR MY NON BILLIONAIRE FAMILY.

[Squinch]

39. There is no one here who disputes that healthcare for all

is a right. Why do you keep pretending anyone here disputes that?

[PaulX2]

42. I'm Thanking Bernie For Making It Part Of His Message

I wish more dems made it their main issue. Many actually are.

[ucrdem]

44. I don't suppose you've heard of the PPACA?

It was quite an achievement and many Dems lost their offices for supporting it. Maybe we shouldn't be so eager to reinvent the wheel?

[JCanete]

46. Dems lost offices for running away from it. It was such a weak front we put up after we passed it,

and people bailed and that made us look weak and apologetic for our accomplishment. nt

[ucrdem]

48. Oh baloney. And access to healthcare has been part of the Dem message since the 1930s at least. nt

[JCanete]

49. It isn't a consistent message. We aren't all on the same page. We don't all want the same thing.

We fight against ourselves here. We are in this thread, because you want to give credence to the intent of a Koch study rather than the numbers within it that bely that intent....that is an unconvincing way to show that you want universal healthcare.

[Uncle Joe]

112. ..

[lapucelle]

129. It has been a consistent message.

Some people may not have been listening.

H.R. 676 (108th Congress; 2003-2004): Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act (38 co-sponsors)

H.R. 676 (109th Congress; 2005-2006): Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act (78 co-sponsors)

H.R. 676 (110th Congress; 2007-2008): United States National Health Insurance Act (or the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act) (93 co-sponsors)

H.R. 676 (111th Congress; 2009-2010): Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act (87 co-sponsors)

H.R. 676 (112th Congress; 2011-2012 ): Expanded & Improved Medicare For All Act (77 co-sponsors)

H.R. 676 (113th Congress; 2013-2014): Expanded & Improved Medicare For All Act (63 co-sponsors)

H.R. 676 (114th Congress; 2015-2016): Expanded & Improved Medicare For All Act (62 co-sponsors)

H.R. 676 (115th Congress; 2017-2018): Expanded & Improved Medicare For All Act (123 co-sponsors*)

*HR 676 already had 117 co-sponsors before Sanders introduced his bill, including 51 original co-sponsors who signed on when Conyers re-introduced his signature Medicare for All legislation for the seventh time in January 2017)

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/hr676

[Hortensis]

132. Here are SEN. CONYER'S cosponsors for his first bill.

Cosponsor, Date Cosponsored

Rep. McDermott, Jim [D-WA-7]* 02/11/2003
Rep. Kucinich, Dennis J. [D-OH-10]* 02/11/2003
Rep. Christensen, Donna M. [D-VI-At Large]* 02/11/2003
Rep. Scott, Robert C. "Bobby" [D-VA-3]* 02/11/2003
Rep. Lee, Barbara [D-CA-9]* 02/11/2003
Rep. Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC-At Large]* 02/11/2003
Rep. Davis, Danny K. [D-IL-7]* 02/11/2003
Rep. Owens, Major R. [D-NY-11]* 02/11/2003
Rep. Jackson, Jesse L., Jr. [D-IL-2]* 02/11/2003
Rep. Hinchey, Maurice D. [D-NY-22]* 02/11/2003
Rep. Payne, Donald M. [D-NJ-10]* 02/11/2003
Rep. Cummings, Elijah E. [D-MD-7]* 02/11/2003
Rep. Kilpatrick, Carolyn C. [D-MI-13]* 02/11/2003
Rep. Hastings, Alcee L. [D-FL-23]* 02/11/2003
Rep. Fattah, Chaka [D-PA-2]* 02/11/2003
Rep. Grijalva, Raul M. [D-AZ-7]* 02/11/2003
Rep. Towns, Edolphus [D-NY-10]* 02/11/2003
Rep. Lewis, John [D-GA-5]* 02/11/2003
Rep. Gutierrez, Luis V. [D-IL-4]* 02/11/2003
Rep. Thompson, Bennie G. [D-MS-2]* 02/11/2003
Rep. Carson, Julia [D-IN-7]* 02/11/2003
Rep. Pastor, Ed [D-AZ-4]* 02/11/2003
Rep. Woolsey, Lynn C. [D-CA-6]* 02/11/2003
Rep. Clay, Wm. Lacy [D-MO-1]* 02/11/2003
Rep. Rangel, Charles B. [D-NY-15]* 02/11/2003
Rep. Velazquez, Nydia M. [D-NY-12] 03/26/2003
Rep. Udall, Tom [D-NM-3] 07/07/2003
Rep. Nadler, Jerrold [D-NY-8] 07/08/2003
Rep. Abercrombie, Neil [D-HI-1] 03/10/2004
Rep. Baldwin, Tammy [D-WI-2] 04/22/2004
Rep. Sanders, Bernard [I-VT-At Large] 04/22/2004
Rep. Maloney, Carolyn B. [D-NY-14] 05/05/2004
Rep. Jones, Stephanie Tubbs [D-OH-11] 05/05/2004
Rep. Frank, Barney [D-MA-4] 07/07/2004
Rep. Jackson-Lee, Sheila [D-TX-18] 07/12/2004
Rep. Engel, Eliot L. [D-NY-17] 09/30/2004
Rep. Weiner, Anthony D. [D-NY-9] 09/30/2004
Rep. Olver, John W. [D-MA-1] 09/30/2004

[JCanete]

145. I appreciate that this has reached over 100 democratic congresspeople. Taht's something.

What it isn't is consensus. Sorry. When big name Senators democratic say they would not support any such legislation, that's kind of a hint that we are not all on the same page.

[Hortensis]

150. Disingenuous. The Republicans blocked passage.

DU is not an appropriate place to spin anti-Democratic distortions of history.

You know, I'm sure, that if any of these bills could have been passed it would have been worked on by both house and senate Democrats until a final version was reached.

Most of us are proud to be the ones who've fought for healthcare reform for nearly 100 years now, who've achieved the great advances of the ACA, and who will eventually achieve universal healthcare.

We are the ones who make it happen.

[JCanete]

159. what are you talking about? We had an opportunity to pass this sort of thing when

Obama was President. Lieberman was a holdout for even a public option. So glad we kept him, since our leadership did their very level best to get him reelected in the primary that year, and did substantially less to defeat him in the GE.

what am I being disingenuous about exactly? I know the Republicans suck. I know that they will never vote in favor of something that is good for the American people UNLESS there's a threat of something even better for the American people on the table.

I'm not spinning shit. All democrats are not on the same page. That's just a fact. Pretending it is otherwise just isn't true. In another context people here would be embracing that reality as being about us having a big tent, but here in this discussion, that's paprently inconveneint for some reason.

[Hortensis]

163. That's an edited version of history to fit a story

no one who cares about healthcare for all should want to believe. You're right they could have gone straight for a single-payer system such as Hillary had once done.

But what are the reasons they did not, and why would anyone who claims to have paid attention dismiss them all as if they never existed? To support some "alternative fact" claim that mainstream Democrats oppose healthcare for all? If that were true, it would never happen. The ACA could never have happened.

It's the nature of some minorities to feel they are the ones, but they're not. They can help create a winning majority by joining with the mainstream to achieve healthcare advances -- arguing and pushing for greater action but not fighting against the ultimate group decision, they can just get out of the way, or they can refuse to join and sabotage the mainstream decision as in 2016. Those are the choices.

[JCanete]

165. You just told me that Republicans killed Conyer's efforts for single payer.

So, it seems sensible that I show you a time when republicans didn't have that power, when universal healthcare had momentum, and we couldn't get it passed amongst ourselves. There are plenty of good reasons you can cite here as to why that went down the way it did, if you feel inclined, but what makes you think that had the republicans not been in the way previously that you wouldn't have all those good reasons to cite today about that other time we almost got universal healthcare?

I have no idea what you mean by " you should not want to believe." That's not an argument that appeals to reason.

[questionseverything]

238. the aca left out 20 million peops and another 40 mil who cant afford touse what they have

I wouldn't be too proud

[ehrnst]

151. It's a hint that maybe there is a better option.

Expanding the ACA.

Of course, even the the GOP leaders that know shutting down Planned Parenthood would actually increase abortions and not end them, will get out there with all the the others and stump on defunding Planned Parenthood, so that they're all on the same page.

They have been convinced that "staying on the same page" about Planned Parenthood will save their ass come re-election time. They know that the issue is one that is now dogma, even if it isn't supported by health policy analysts.

Anyone who dares to speak up about why defunding PP is not the right way to "end abortion" will be excoriated as immoral, and hating babies, and loving abortion.

Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

[JCanete]

162. No ehrnst, because the major difference is the actual facts brought to bear in this

circumstance, not that they are supposed to be inconvenient for Sanders, but that they are just pretty worthless and even intended to be deceptive.. I'm not reacting to criticism of Sanders, I'm reacting to disingenuous garbage.

You can disagree with me and try to characterize me and my reasons for thinking that way, and that of course, will get us exactly nowhere. but have at it. What you haven't done is responded to my criticisms of the factcheck.org response or of Tapper's presentation.

[ehrnst]

164. No, to say that he misrepresented the conclusions of the study is not disingenuous.

Saying that the Factcheck.org or Politifact or the WAPO fact check was about the validity of M4A, let alone attacking it is what is disingenuous.

You are reacting to the factcheck.org piece with a defense of M4A. I respond by repeating that the Factcheck.org piece about Sander's misrepresentation of a study conclusion, and not about M4A, and not about the Mercatus Study. I bring it back to that, and you still think that it's about people hating on his M4A plan, and NOT about the accuracy of his statement on the findings of the Mercatus report.

That is why you don't think I've responded.

You are the one who is not responding to what factcheck.org said - but instead trying to make it about how valid M4A is, and about how Senators need to be on "the same page" as Bernie and whoever agrees with him.

You accused me off the bat of making this about hating Bernie, and wanting to discredit him. I was making a comment about those Bernie supporters on Twitter who were swarming factcheck.org.

well if your agenda is to make sure he's wrong and mistaken, do better than this or Tapper's lousy

piece of crap. They fail pretty miserably at the task.

Also, where did you pull that shit about why Sanders supporters like him from? That smacks of "if it sounds like a sick burn use it, who cares how factual, even anecdotally."

"https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211032432#post17

And I responded to you and addressed exactly why the factcheck.org evidence that he was indeed wrong in his representation of the Mercatus study conclusions.

You didn't respond.

Sanders lashed out with a misrepresentation of the factcheck.org claim. So yes, this is an example of him not tolerating any correction or any dissent, and many, many here are making it about "bashing Bernie" precisely because factcheck.org AND Politifact AND WAPO have maintained that he didn't represent the study's findings in his statement.

Bernie has yet to address his misrepresentation of factcheck.org's article.

And to say, as @SenSanders tweeted, that we are putting our “blind faith in a far right-wing economist” is wrong. We took no position on the M4A bill or the study by Charles Blahous of the Mercatus Center study.

If indeed Factcheck.org "put their blind faith in a far right-wing economist" by asking him what his conclusions were, and reporting that his conclusions and Sanders' statement about his conclusion didn't match, isn't Sanders himself putting "faith in a far right-wing economist" for "making the case for Medicare for All?"

No one has been able to answer the first can be true without the second also being true...

[JCanete]

166. Welp, there you go. You've apparently read none of my posts regarding this, which

is why you can repeat the same things as if I haven't spoken to them. For your information, it should be clear from my previous posts that I am not saying factcheck.org is attacking Medicare for All, although Tapper certainly tried to do it no favors when her repeated obviously flawed and mischaracterizing assumptions in the study. I found their characterization of Sanders trying to embrace the study absurd. That never happened. he embraced the study's incompitence...its accidental reporting of the savings that could occur under the proposal. That's just smart rhetorically, and the weak-ass return on that "but that's not what we meant" falls on my deaf ears, and equally so when other institutions rush to protect them from themselves and say "but that's not what they meant!"

Sorry. Its what their numbers said and what they didn't even address. They tried to pretend those numbers said something else.

[ehrnst]

172. I read your posts.

And now you claim Tapper is "attacking M4A."

Actually no.

He states at the end of the video that neither he, nor CNN nor factcheck.org is commenting on the validity of M4A or the Mercatus report - just the difference in what the Mercatus report concluded, and what Sanders said it concluded. And yes, even after they edited the video to take into account the "American people" and "Government" difference in semantics, the conclusion was the same.

I found their characterization of Sanders trying to embrace the study absurd. That never happened. he embraced the study's incompitence.

Actually no.

"Let me thank the Koch brothers, of all people, for sponsoring a study that shows that Medicare for all would save the American people $2 trillion over a 10-year period," Sanders said.

"In the video, Sanders thanked the Koch brothers for proving his plan would cut health-care costs."

He found it very competent, enough to quote, and to validate his M4A plan.

That's just smart rhetorically, and the weak-ass return on that "but that's not what we meant" falls on my deaf ears, and equally so when other institutions rush to protect them from themselves and say "but that's not what they meant!

Actually no.

That claim was in the abstract of the study - and not a reaction or a "rush to deny."

In the paper’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 health care providers operating under M4A will be reimbursed at rates more than 40 percent lower than those currently paid by private health insurance.” (“M4A” is short for “Medicare-for-all.”)

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/08/video-medicare-for-all-claims/

No wonder Bernie didn't link to the study in his fundraising email.

Look, I think that they got someone to gloss over the paper, then cherry picked and thought that no one would dare to contradict him.

It's like when the GOP took that snippet of Obama saying "you didn't build that," and represented it as Obama saying that businesses didn't build themselves. The reaction that Right wingers gave when I gave them the whole video was similar to what I'm seeing on this thread, "Well, he SAID THAT. You can't say he didn't SAY THAT." But what he meant, his conclusion was very different than what the GOP said it did.

This is what the report concluded, and it's not what Sanders said it did.

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.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/aug/03/bernie-s/did-conservative-study-show-big-savings-bernie-san/

“To lend credibility to the $2 trillion savings number, one would have to argue that we can cut payments to providers by about 40 percent at the same time as increasing demand by about 11 percent,” Blahous said.

The main point of his study is being ignored by Democrats — that even by generously accepting Sanders’s assumptions that he could squeeze providers so much, the plan would still raise government expenditures by $32.6 trillion.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/08/07/democrats-seize-on-cherry-picked-claim-that-medicare-for-all-will-save-2-trillion/?utm_term=.ba1c510c8467

[betsuni]

133. Looks consistent to me.

"Democrats don't want universal health care" must be in the True Progressives' Bible or something.

[JCanete]

146. Or...you can just listen to some of our leaders tell you themselves whether or not they

are for a Single-Payer system. I'm glad this has gained steam in congress and in the Senate and credit to all those who have made that happen, but don't pretend there aren't those in the party who are opposed to this direction. That my friend, is not consistent. That my friend is not evidence that "we ALL want universal healthcare..."

Neither is the constant refrain that now isn't the right time evidence of that, particularly since the logic falls down so spectacularly. Like who do we think this is going to alienate?

[betsuni]

152. I roast the bananas when I make banana bread.

[JHan]

135. I predict your facts will be ignored...

and you'll have this same exchange in the near future, arguing the same point, having to repeat yourself.

I can guarantee it.

[JCanete]

147. JHan, what did these facts prove to you. That we really are ALL in favor of universal healthcare?

How exactly does this show that. How does this prove that we are consistent on this. This is certainly not the kind of legislation Feinstein would sign onto if you take her word for it. And as you and I both know, just because you say you are for something -Lieberman - .doesn't mean that when it actually is about to become a reality that you won't suddenly do an about face, or show your true colors.

I do appreciate that it is becoming more and more politically expedient to be in favor of universal healthcare proposals, but until a vote actually comes to the floor of congress and the Senate, maybe you'll excuse me if I withhold my optimism.

[JHan]

149. I can't help your obsession with particular democrats

and your determination to paint the entire democratic party and all democratic advocacy with your characterization of one or two dems or former dems you don't like. It's pretty clear historically that Dems have wanted to expand the social contract.

I keep wishing there was a greater focus on the ways Republicans and Conservatives hamstring progress but dissing Dems is what's hot in the streets.

[JCanete]

155. That isn't what I was doing. What was in question was whether or not we all want universal

healthcare. I'm certainly not painting the whole party to be Lieberman, or Feinstein for that matter. I'm not ever sure how you arrived at that.

[betsuni]

157. LOL

[JCanete]

158. ROFL...insert emogie....LMAO

[R B Garr]

175. No, that is not what is in question, "whether or not we all want universal healthcare"

No, that is not what is in question, but your shifting back and forth between single payer and universal health care shows an intentional strategy to confuse the issues so you can keep reiterating the main point of sullying Democrats. Let's face it, the main point here is the not-so-ubiquitous slam that Democrats aren't really doing enough, and only one man can get it done. It's very obvious the continued smear of Democrats is what the main goal is.

[ehrnst]

205. They keep on trying to attack that strawman...

Because, you know, if you don't recite the dogma, you are excommunicated from being a progressive.

Which dwindles the number of fundamentalists even more.

Even trying to debate rationally with someone who has memorized the manifesto is usually pointless, because there is so much that isn't covered in the manifesto.

[JCanete]

206. nice. You couldn't just be having a conversation with an honest actor coming to his own conclusions

, it has to be that you are pure and a free thinker and we all take our talking points and marching orders. What's funny is that there was a joke back in Jon Stewart's book that showed a democrats brain and a republicans brain. The democrats brain had among some hilarious other tidbits, grey matter. The Republican brain had only black and white matter. I wish that joke still applied as purely as it used to seem to.

[ehrnst]

210. That book came out before 2016 election.

There was no "green tea party" for the Left, but there is now, where the black and white matter dwell.

Russia and the GOP convinced many on the left that there was indeed only "black and white" and "good and evil" politicians.

Sad.


Who is the "honest actor coming to his own conclusions" you are referring to?

[R B Garr]

207. Yes, it is very obvious. How anyone can say that Democrats aren't

for universal health care and then pretend to be an expert on single payer is not being honest if they commingle the terms just to try and confuse people to keep the attacks going. It's such a dishonest ploy, but...hey. It is to try and maintain the illusion that Democrats haven't fought for it, as if one whole entire Democratic presidency never happened. What doesn't fit a manufactured reality is ignored or distorted. I don't even think that's called progressivism. To be so invested in turning aside any Democratic accomplishment or anything on our platform is called something else.

[ehrnst]

211. Black and white, good and evil.

Thank you Russia and politicians on the left who have created a "green tea party."

I guess that those binary thinkers on the left had not found a candidate who convinced them that anyone even a quarter inch to the right of them on any issue, no matter how small was evidence of "corruption!!!"

[JCanete]

219. ouch such a sting....except that I'm not a Stein supporter and neither was Sanders. The

need for so many here to make everybody who disagrees with them black hat wearing bad guys with evil manipulative intentions but of course stupid to boot(where do I often hear that juxtaposition) is what I'm calling out. If you don't have a problem with it then I think its a shame.

[ehrnst]

252. Actually, yes, Democrats all want Universal Health Care

It's bullshit to say otherwise.

The one who is doing the fighting isn't a Democrat.

you want to give credence to the intent of a Koch study

No, Factcheck.org clearly stated it had no comment on the accuracy of the Mercatus study, but only whether Sanders was correct in his representation of it.

because you want to give credence to the intent of a Koch study rather than the numbers within it that bely that intent.

Actually, no matter who wrote, who funded it, be it beezlebub himself - pointing out that Sanders took things out of context is not "defending"or "giving credence" anything about the study intentions or "being led by the Koch Bros."

Your rantings trying to push this insult are about as accurate as me calling you and anyone else who is angrily trying to discredit and smear factcheck.org, politifact and WAPO as being the same Russian shills that were pushing misinformation about Hillary Bernie supporters during the 2016 general election.

Really. And because I refuse to be baited into becoming as irrational about this as you are, you keep on with the insults, and sound even more irrational.

I think that Bernie will be OK if his bestest defender doesn't convince some meanies that Factcheck.org, politifact and WAPO aren't all in the pocket of the Koch Bros, or Democrats really don't want universal health care if they aren't "on the same page" as the one and only authority on health care reform that ever was.

You'll give yourself high blood pressure.

Sad as it is, you just aren't going to get me to submit to what you clearly believe are your superior ideas on politics, and your superior understanding of all things concerning health policy analysis, and your purity of intention.

Certainly if points are given for being the maddest, the one that uses the most caps, the one who calls themselves the moral one the most often, the one who makes the most posts equating anyone who doesn't agree with them with supporting the koch bros, the one who equates anyone who disagrees in any way with Sanders as being against universal health care, well you got those points.

I, on the other hand, give more points to less emotional, less domineering, more factual, less biased arguments. I have more respect for Obama apologizing for his mistakes than anyone who simply doubles down when called out on them, because that indicates that person has the intellectual flexibility to learn, and isn't just saying the same thing for decades because they equate a foolish consistency with ethical strength. And I find that those who are never open to anything that might cause them to reassess their views usually lack any sense of humor, which is a hallmark of an active, engaged, curious mind.

[JCanete]

253. first of all, I never suggested that people were intentionally propping up the Koch study here,

but for some reason people here do want to shield it from "misuse," as if it isn't what is trying to misuse its own data.

I was pointing out that you are helping to keep the intended message of that study alive just as Tapper and factcheck.org are also unintentionally doing by privileging what the study meant to say over what it did say. What it did say, in big numbers, is 32 trillion to the government. What it didn't say, was that it would save 2 trillion to the tax payer.

What it didn't give was a worst case number. It just extrapolated that it would be worse.

The point isn't about whether or not factcheck is siding with the story or not or trusting its numbers or not. I've repeated that over and over but you have to construct this strawman of my complaint so that you can keep trying to knock it down. The point is that it is trying to say the study is saying something other than what it accidentally is saying, again by reaching outside of the only numbers it provides. What are you still misunderstanding here?


as to the ALL CAPS. I don't have whole passages of all caps. Stylistically I've been using them to emphasize certain points either to make sure that they get read correctly or to draw attention to them in long blocks. Its not me shouting you down in text...which is actually a pretty hilarious concept.


It isn't bullshit to say otherwise. The ACA is NOT universal healthcare. Too many people still don't have it. Even ultimately controlling costs isn't a means of ensuring that everybody gets it. I may just be ignorant on this subject, but can you explain to me how we get 100 percent coverage in a non-single payer plan?

[ehrnst]

258. Yes, the ACA is a plan for UHC.

See my post here:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=11049582

You are coming from a lack of information on what the ACA is and what UHC is, and your personal situation is what is front and center in your mind, so seeing the bigger picture, and understanding why your anger seems to be misdirected is very difficult for you.

But facts matter. Even if they don't comfort you, and you feel that your personal situation makes you more of a moral authority on healthcare coverage, it seems to get in the way of reason when presented to you.

And yes, in your ranting, you are equating anyone who thinks factcheck.org isn't attacking Bernie is doing the work of the Koch Bros.

Those that didn't rise to your bait, called you out on your insults, and continue to correct you on your misunderstandings of the ACA, universal health care, and what makes the conclusions of multiple reputable fact checking orgs more credible than a defensive politician raising money in a re-election year, seem to enrage you even more.

I suggest that you watch your blood pressure, especially in your situation. And again, I suggest you use the ignore feature,.

[JCanete]

259. You don't have to be siding with the Koch's or their agenda to still privilege their talking point

Last edited Sat Aug 25, 2018, 05:20 PM - Edit history (2)

here, over, what is still my opinion, Sanders righteous use of their actual numbers. It is certainly not hurting them to help promote what they meant over what their numbers said. Again, something that you refuse to address. You just avoid it every single post. Its so astonishingly consistent that I have to give you props. You've not only ignored the slant of the study, but you've also ignored consistently, the actual focus of my disagreement with factcheck's work here. I'm done responding to you on this topic since you aren't doing the work to address why my argument is wrong.

As to what is or is not universal healthcare:

How is something that doesn't provide coverage to 100 percent of US citizens universal coverage, universal coverage? If that's the argument you want to make and the definition you want to have for it, then I'll concede that I guess we all want universal health coverage, but that's a low bar. I assumed universal was something that covered a larger swath of the American population, like hey, all of its citizens , and for that matter, didnt' have vast gaps in coverage depending on the plan you purchased. Buying a plan that doesn't cover you when a specific thing happens to you is not exactly what I'd call having coverage. But to each their own when it comes to what Universal Helathcare means....I guess. I mean, on that one you've got me at a loss.

[PaulX2]

68. Dems Didn't Defend Doing The Right Thing

And paid the price. Running away from Obama was idiotic.

[R B Garr]

45. We have Hillary to thank for that from 25 years ago. She put

herself out there as a champion of universal health care when no one else took on the political risk at that time. I'm not talking about lecturing from a podium kind of risk, but real risk of actually working with others.

[JCanete]

47. We do have her to thank for that. Too bad the lesson she learned from it is that those chances are

political suicide. I think she was wrong and should have come back with it years later and run on it and owned that she was among those who got there first. But yes, she totally deserves a lot of credit for that initial proposal and we let her get mauled for it. Maybe we shouldn't do that again to politicians who are in the right on policy.

[R B Garr]

50. Do you have a link to where Hillary Clinton said it was political suicide

to actively work for universal health care? It sounds like a lot of spin meant to prop up someone else, actually. The main point is that she did take the political risk and wasn't completely supported by others. Where is their mea culpa? An explanation as to how universal health care 25 years ago was a ground-splitting task would be great instead of suggesting all-or-nothing tactics that have no chance of advancing.

[JCanete]

55. I understand Clinton's reasoning for triangulating on these issues given just how much flak she

received for that, and you might make the case that I would not argue with that this was a smart move that got her elected to the Senate and made her Presidential aspirations real in 2008. But come 2016 the times had changed. The effort that she helped move forward by taking the brunt of the resistance to it on the chin, had come a long way. It was not a time to be cautious and middling with these ideas anymore...in my opinion. In my opinion I think she made a mistake by not leaning into her old position, which again, she could have claimed AS hers. If it was no longer her belief, well, that's fair, but that's a different kind of disappointing.

[R B Garr]

61. It wasn't triangulating as much as living in reality. Do you have a link to where

she said she was triangulating??

And look what all -or-nothing got you -- nothing. That's usually how it works. So of course working with others is important and that is never issuing ultimatums and all-or-nothing threats. That whole effort has failed, so that kind of shoots down your assumptions here.

[JCanete]

65. except nobody went for all-or-nothing. Who are you referring to? Maybe some Stein supporters.

Not Sanders, who backed the ACA(and of course there are 1000s of examples of him not letting the perfect be the enemy of at least a little good, but I guess that doesn't fit with your narrative), who also endorsed Clinton, nor his voters, who mostly came out for Clinton. What all-or-nothing threats are you even referencing?

How is triangulating different from living in reality? Either way, its making political calculations. What are you attempting to parse here?

[R B Garr]

73. You are parsing, clearly. Thanks for confirming that you

are trying to refight the primaries with your biases and your what-about-isms that don’t match what Sanders himself said about incrementalism.

[JCanete]

80. You made something entirely up that you can't back up. I don't need to parse anything. You made

an all-or-nothing claim that doesn't exist in the public record of Sanders or his supporters, either in rhetoric or action. Saying that we need something more than targeting incrementalism is not the same as saying all-or-nothing. Suggesting that we need to fight for big change over small incremental change is about what we should fight for and how we should fight for it. We shouldn't be watering our impact down among ourselves because when we do that we have nothing to force the GOP to the table with.

[R B Garr]

83. You are deviating from what Sanders said himself.

You can Google what he said. Sanders and incrementalism. It is you who is making things up. I’ve asked you for links about your musings about Hillary Clinton as if you speak for her, but you have no links.

Your comments about healthcare and the GOP don’t mean diddly-squat unless you win elections. Win or go home. That’s pretty much the deal. Reality.

[JCanete]

108. Show me his all-or-nothing actions. Show me where he said we shouldn't comrpomise for the best

we can get. We just shouldn't have to compromise with ourselves, if indeed we all really do believe in getting to the same place, which I keep being told here is what we believe in.

[R B Garr]

122. You can Google what he said about incrementalism.

You are changing what he said himself. This is now your 3rd refusal to Google what he said. You can go Google it.

[ehrnst]

123. Well, his lashing out at being shown to be wrong on a study conclusion is one example

of his lack of tolerance for any dissent, or any disagreement with him. He accuses people who do of being shills or corrupt.

His refusal to join the Democratic party, unless it provides him with funding and marketing for his campaign is more evidence that does not wish to be a part of a group, as that requires listening to other people and following rules he didn't write, or agree to. His primary legislative accomplishment - amendments - are also more evidence that he doesn't participate in the teamwork to build the legislation, but comes in after the compromise is done, and tacks on his own idea.

I will not go into incidents during early 2016, for obvious reasons.

[lapucelle]

192. BS was not an advocate of the Clinton health care plan in 1993-1994.

The Clinton administration-backed bill, the Health Security Act (H.R.3600), was introduced in the House on Nov. 20, 1993, with 103 cosponsors. Sanders was not among them.

BS co-sponsored a different, state-based plan. (H.R.1200 - American Health Security Act of 1993).

https://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/house-bill/3600
https://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/house-bill/03600/cosponsors
https://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/house-bill/1200/text

[lapucelle]

92. John Conyers introduced the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act

(HR 676) in almost every session of Congress beginning in 2003, including the current session of Congress.

The bill had 68 co-sponsors the year it was first introduced. It had already garnered 124 co-sponsors in 2017 before BS came up with his (unfunded) plan.

Anyone who thinks that Democrats are new to this fight is sadly mistaken. The organization Medicare for All has been advocating for HR 676 since the Bush years. It is true single payer, universal coverage medicare for all and is funded in detail. We need a senate version of the Conyers bill.

http://www.medicareforall.org/pages/HR676

[David__77]

187. Agree: healthcare is a right. Not "access to health care."

Access contingent on ability to pay is not universal access.

[jalan48]

51. Therefore, Single Payer is off the table!

[Squinch]

53. Are you joking, putting words in others' mouths, or do you really believe "1+2 equals giraffe"?

[jalan48]

54. Insurance based healthcare for all! Right?

[Squinch]

56. There is no one in this thread who does not believe in universal healthcare.

It seems important to many BS supporters to believe they are unique in wanting universal healthcare and it is a measure of their purity.

Its quite bizarre of them.

[jalan48]

57. Good to hear and universal healthcare is no longer a pony?

[Squinch]

59. Please link to where anyone ever said it was.

Did you think it made you special to want it?

[jalan48]

63. Sorry, I was under the impression some said it would never, ever happen. Glad to see

everyone is on board now.

[Squinch]

66. Do show where anyone here ever said that, please.

[jalan48]

67. Here on DU?

[ehrnst]

99. Factcheck.org Politifact and WAPO aren't saying that.

Never did.

In your anger, you may have missed where they all said that they were not commenting on M4A or the accuracy of the Mercator study, but the accuracy of Sander's claims about the conclusions of the study.

We can all calm down....

Unless you want to change topics and make it about M4A. You seem to want the factcheck.org to be twirling their mustache and planning how to "destroy M4A"

Were you a theatre major?

[jalan48]

100. Anger is it?

[ehrnst]

114. Baseless accusations and desperate attempts to change the topic usually indicate

anger or deep embarrassment...

[jalan48]

119. Ah, the old Psychological Projection problem.

[ehrnst]

213. Stings doesn't it?

[jalan48]

215. Look in the mirror.

[ehrnst]

216. I know you are but what am I?

What's next? Booger flicking?

[jalan48]

243. Whatever floats your boat.

[ehrnst]

244. Is recess almost over?

I assume you have a job...



And thanks for keeping this kicked!

[questionseverything]

241. pony,unicorn

either or

[R B Garr]

58. Are you saying that you don't remember the 90's when Hillary Clinton led

the efforts to secure universal health care. Right?

[jalan48]

62. What happened?

[R B Garr]

136. Your posts to Squinch were denying that anyone other than one

man was ever in support of universal health care, when there is actual a whole history of actual Democrats actually working for it for decades now. Remember?

[questionseverything]

242. universal healthcare and universal insurance are 2dif things

[ehrnst]

93. Sanders misrepresented what a study concluded, in order to support his message.

If Single Payer can't survive Senator Sanders being held to account for the accuracy of his statements, you certainly must think it has little value.

But I really think that you're just attacking a strawman. Very dramatic...

[Squinch]

60. Lets all be clear: thus thread is not about universal healthcare.

There is no one here who does not support universal healthcare.

This thread is about BS misinterpreting a study. Nothing more.

So I will say again: whenever Democrats bicker, BS is at the base of it.

[JCanete]

69. First, you're wrong. Nothing is being misinterpreted by Sanders. He's using their own

numbers against them. If they didn't want that to happen, they should have done a better job tainting their study. Second, if all this is is about Sanders, then hating him or being irritated with him to the degree that you will take the desired intentions of a Koch study over their own oopsie numbers in that study that hurt them as the gold-standard of truth(factcheck and Tapper certainly wanted to make sure we fully understood what slanted bullshit they were trying to sell) because it harms Sanders and his claims, is the most hilariously self-defeating way to show your support for universal healthcare that I can think of. You don't like Sanders so you will carry Koch waters to frame the story in a way that hurts Sanders AND Medicare-for-All?

Those priorities are way out of whack Squinch.

[Squinch]

70. Do you want universal healthcare? So do I. So what is the

argument. Is it worth your while to fight that side issue of the study's numbers? Apparently it is. Why? Because someone suggested BS was wrong.

Nothing whatsoever to do with universal healthcare. Everything to do with BS.

[JCanete]

72. Is it worth your time and anybody else's here to actually go to bat for the Koch study's hit-job and

the efforts of factcheck and Tapper to dig the study out of its own self-made hole? The part that you want to hold onto is that Sanders is wrong, and yet, where is he wrong? I've already stated how absurd the claims are and you haven't yourself tackled them, nor has anybody here, so unless you can address that, then you're right, this is about Sanders, but it isn't who you think that's making it that. This is a tool against the Koch's and their distortions, and you want to disarm us. What the ever loving fuck.

[Squinch]

79. And still, you are distracted by a non-issue when you meant

to discuss universal healthcare. Because BS. The issue of the study has been done to death. I'm not going to get into it again. You will see what you see and I will see what I see and none of it will change. And also, we are in agreement in the underlying issue.

Wherever there is conflict between Democrats, BS is at the base of it.

[JCanete]

82. Yeah, but whereas you would blame Sanders for that, I'd blame those trying to undermine universal

healthcare just because it hurts Sanders, although, lets be honest, some people really really don't believe in anything like Medicare for All, so this isn't necessarily a conflict. For you, apparently it should be but instead you also decide to turn this into how this kerfuffle is about Sanders and not about trying to kill the momentum Medicare-for-All with spurious facts.

[Squinch]

85. And you will make up motivations and actions for others

because you need to believe there is more to this than your Bernie luv.

But its really just your Bernie luv.

[ehrnst]

91. You think Sanders is above being fact checked and called out when his misrepresents something?

Why is he more exempt than any other politician?

[JCanete]

101. asked in another thread. what is he misrepresenting? Nobody thinks Sanders is saying

the Koch study is trying to support medicare-for-all, except for you and factcheck and tapper and other names here. So what is sanders spinning? That's just silly nonsense. He's not spinning. He's using an inconvenient truth that the authors of the study accidentally included to show that the Koch's missed the heart. There's no misrepresentation. And by god Ehrnst, to back up the author who literally did try to misrepresent these findings in obvious ways by making this about government expenditures rather than savings to the American people, which is exactly the numbers Sanders seized on to show that they do not say what the study tries to convey) is a baffling to me.

[Uncle Joe]

140. + all that exists again

[ehrnst]

214. "Thank you, Koch brothers, for accidentally making the case for Medicare for All!" - Bernie

So, yeah, there was someone else other than ehrnst and factcheck and tapper and other names here and Politifact and WAPO.

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/08/the-cost-of-medicare-for-all/

.

So what is sanders spinning?

First, that the study "Makes the case for M4A" then that Factcheck.org was "putting our “blind faith in a far right-wing economist”

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/08/the-cost-of-medicare-for-all/

And by god Ehrnst, to back up the author who literally did try to misrepresent these findings in obvious ways by making this about government expenditures rather than savings to the American people, which is exactly the numbers Sanders seized on to show that they do not say what the study tries to convey) is a baffling to me.

Again if the author "literally did try to misrepresent these findings in obvious ways," then why is Bernie citing him as "making the case for Medicare for All?" That is what is baffling to me.

[JCanete]

218. That's a perfect example of him not taking them at their words or intentions,

thus the "thank you...for accidentally..."

He is obviously slapping them for being foolish enough to try to damn Medicare-for-All with the emphasis on a best case 32 trillion dollar cost to government.

If you were in a debate and you made the foolish ass comment "even if we assume your numbers are correct Bernie, that would be an increase of government spending to 32 trillion dollars..." And Sanders came back and said, "Well if that's your figure, that would be a savings of 2 trillion dollars to the American taxpayer." You just lost that debate. You just opened the door to a smackdown and got owned. Who cares how you try to parse it. Who cares what case you are trying to make overall. You supplied the ammunition for your funeral. But instead, for whatever reasons, we're trying really hard to give the Koch study and its true intentions life-support.

By the way that is nothing like Obama saying "you didn't build this." The words were slightly off but the intention isn't really in question, whether people wanted to spin it or not. In my example above, teh intention is obviously different. they didn't slightly mangle their words, they presented their words in an effort to paint one picture of Medicare-for-All as a flop even in its best case. The problem is that isn't what that particular data showed and that is why it is entirely fair game to use it against them.

[ehrnst]

220. Yep, more words...

But instead, for whatever reasons, we're trying really hard to give the Koch study and its true intentions life-support.

No, simply fact checking if the study claimed what Sanders said it did. It's incredibly sad when Democrats get so emotional that they attack reputable fact checking orgs for not confirming their bias. I expect it from Trump supporters, but not us.

"By the way that is nothing like Obama saying "you didn't build this." The words were slightly off but the intention isn't really in question, whether people wanted to spin it or not."

I think that Sanders took something out of context and tried to spin it as validating his bill, much like the GOP did with Obama by taking that sentence out of context. And unfortunately, many Democrats are just repeating the same behavior that the Republican base did when presented with "You didn't build that." They absolutely resisted any fact checking.

I hope that we can get over this kind of thing before November.

[JCanete]

222. You avoided all that I said that challenges what you think. He took their best-case attack and

showed that it was a weak-ass attack. That's not out of context. He didn't quote them, he looked at their numbers and said those numbers say something that they either didn't think they said or more likely that they tried to obfuscate in the framing.

[ehrnst]

225. Interesting how people equate a fact check with "attack"

I understand that you are offended at the very idea that someone would consider a statement by Senator Sanders as being possibly mistaken, and that might seem lby it's very nature a "weak-ass attack" that you need to step up and defend him from. That's a very emotional reaction to something that just wasn't an "attack." I try to explain fact check orgs to Trump supporters and they are also emotional, along with calling such orgs "fake."

Yes, he took things out of context, as per more than one fact checking org - and they actually contacted the author of the study cited by the Senator, did the research, and that gives them more credibility than you or Senator Sanders concerning what is and is not supported by the study (that Senator Sanders cited.)

He didn't quote them, he looked at their numbers and said those numbers say something that they either didn't think they were or tried to obfuscate in the framing.

No, he cited a study - a study he said "shows that Medicare for All would save the American people $2 trillion over a 10-year period." If I had put that kind of citation in paper in grad school, I would have been taken to the woodshed by my thesis committee.

Studies aren't movies or plays. There isn't a lot of wiggle room for what a study "shows," like there is for say, the case that Hamlet is Gay and in love with Horatio - really not there in the script, but contemporary entertainment in the post Freud era encourages diagnosis.

No, a study done by an analyst (evil, good or chaotic nuetral) is not ambiguous. Especially when the author puts "what their study shows" right at the beginning in a thing called the "abstract."

To contradict that is to misrepresent what the study "shows." Even Senator Sanders isn't exempt from that.

[JCanete]

227. Really? did you read this study? If you really believe there's no wiggle room you should pay

attention to how it tried to frame that number that Sanders is citing. They tried to make it a cost, not a savings. Do you grasp this? I read that abstract and that's exactly the kind of bullshit it was selling. You have heard the saying there are liars damn liars and statisticians right?

Here you go:

Abstract

The leading current bill to establish single-payer health insurance, the Medicare for All Act (M4A), would, under conservative estimates, increase federal budget commitments by approximately $32.6 trillion during its first 10 years of full implementation (2022–2031), assuming enactment in 2018. This projected increase in federal healthcare commitments would equal approximately 10.7 percent of GDP in 2022, rising to nearly 12.7 percent of GDP in 2031 and further thereafter. Doubling all currently projected federal individual and corporate income tax collections would be insufficient to finance the added federal costs of the plan. 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.

Where does it say current healthcare costs are around 34 or 35 trillion in this abstract? Where does it say that these numbers literally included IN THE ABSTRACT represent a reduction to the American tax payer of 2 trillion dollars?


What the study shows is that by their own calculations Sanders best case scenario could save 2 trillion dollars. I do not see the problem with throwing that in their face.

[Uncle Joe]

231. ...

[ehrnst]

245. Did you read my responses to you?

Apparently not, but you respond anyway.

No surprise.

Look, you're very passionate about Senator Sanders, and I get that. And you are very eager to defend him, and to make sure that nobody says anything that isn't praising him isn't answered sternly.

You are not going to convince me that factcheck.org, politifact and WAPO are biased, led by the nose by Mercatus and the Koch bros. to harm Bernie, any more than the rightwingers can convince me that they are biased and led by the nose by PFAW and George Soros to harm Trump.

The fact that you are convinced of this, and the fact that others here think that merely posting something from Factcheck, Politifact and or WAPO fact check is "doing the work of the Koch Bros" really drives home the idea that the left is just as protective of their confirmation bias, and just as willing to reject facts.

I appreciate that you have kept this kicked with your passion for Bernie, but I'm done repeating the facts to someone who clearly is too upset to have any self-awareness about this.

Again - I suggest using the ignore feature to avoid what you obviously think is a malicious intent on my part with these links to nefarious "anti-Bernie fake media fact-checking" sites...." Because I (and likely other DUers who are equally fact obsessed) will likely link to these sites again. Consider yourself warned.

[JCanete]

249. I did not suggest that Factcheck in this case, or Tapper did anything malicious, or that they

were intentionally and cynically working to undermine Sander's campaign on the subject of Medicare-for-All, but I do know that the mainstream media does have a confirmation bias. I'm perfectly willing to accept that I have my own, and I try to be very conscious of that, which means I am looking for things that I think poke holes in my perspective because I don't like to repeat, nor will I, I assure you, an argument that I feel has been effectively dismantled.

And here's a real easy metric for where the hearts and minds of most media personnel tend to be. How many pundits can you count, I predict you'll only need one hand, in the main-stream media that present a perspective that is far left-wing? There are quite a lot of pundits who are far right wing, but how many are far left? Don't you think that's weird? Or do you acknowledge that its because these institutions have no interest in propagating a left-wing message? I mean, the only one I can think of that just barely fits this category is Chris Hayes. Can you name another? We can go outside of the mainstream media bubble and find TYT and Democracy Now, etc. but within it, who else can you name?


So within that structure and the confirmation bias implicit in the people who get hired for these news organizations, not necessarily because of some conspiracy but instead because they more reflect the mindset of the owners and producers of the news, what sorts of "factchecking" organizations do you expect these news agencies to privilege and trust? Factcheck.org is perfectly at home here with its own slant on truth. It, like most of the media isn't in the business of lying. If it reports something as fact, I expect that to be fact, but its interpretation of those facts, and the focus on which facts versus others is all very telling.


And just as you believe I have a confirmation bias, I believe you do and those who quickly jump into these threads that attack anybody who is in any way aligned with Sanders, for that reason. You have to admit that that happens. It happened in the recent Ellison accusation thread where at least a couple posters(weird that they also don't like Bernie) chimed in without evidence to say that they knew they didn't like him. They just knew already that he was guilty. It fit with their world view.



But Ehrnst, I gave you the abstract(at the same time you gave me the abstract in fact). I made my case. Its you who have ignored the evidence and tried to turn this into being about me rather than responding to my point, which is that the study DID NOT try to point out that Sanders assumptions would save the American Taxpayer 2 trillion dollars. It tried to do something entirely different, which was absoultely a misrepresentation of the facts. Something that factcheck.org and Tapper didn't seem to have any interest in addressing. Nor is it convincing to me that we are supposed to ignore the only numbers the abstract introduces in favor of numbers they never came up with. They came up with the 32 billinon dollar figure. THAT was the big gotcha. It failed miserably at being that gotcha. That's the point. That they throw in some words around it in the abstract which basically amounts to "we think it will be worse than this...." is kind of pathetic. That its those words that factcheck.org and Tapper think are sooooo important for contextualization of the ABSTRACTS conclusions, is also telling of quite the confirmation bias.

And that is what I'm objecting to inspite of your own assumptions rearing their head to say that this is all about me being reactionary because somebody posted a response by factcheck. It isn't that it was posted, it is that it is weak-ass sauce, which again, is not apparently the area you want to contradict or challenge in this discussion.

If you disagree, I guess I can expect another post expaining to me that I'm just passionate about Sanders. I'd prefer one addresssing what I've repeated to you over and over, which you have not once countered.

[Uncle Joe]

137. + all that exists!

[ehrnst]

221. "What the ever loving fuck."

My thoughts on this whole thing exactly.

[ehrnst]

88. The author of the study said that his conclusions were not what Sanders' said they were.

I think he would know.

You don't like Sanders so you will carry Koch waters to frame the story in a way that hurts Sanders AND Medicare-for-All?

I don't think anyone here works for factcheck.org, Politifact or WAPO - let alone "carying Koch waters" whatever that's supposed to mean. And calling out a politician when he or she misrepresents something- especially when they are fundraising on that misrepresentation - is not only a right, it's a duty.

[JCanete]

97. You think the author would know? That's what yo've got? The author accidentally

tried to undermine Sanders proposal with data that actually makes it look favorable. He didn't present it as favorable. He presented it as exorbitant government expenditure. Sanders simply replied with what amounts to... thanks for the ammo. Everybody, yourself included, clamoring to defend the intention of the study to undercut medicare-for-all is doing us all a disservice, apparently in the name of Koch-funded "facts" that don't even say what they wanted them to say.

What is Sanders misrepresenting? He's not pretending the study is intentionally favoring medicare-for-all. He is Judoing their bullshit claim against them.

[ehrnst]

106. Um... are you saying that the author of the study can't be trusted to know his own conclusions

and at the same time say that the study is reliable enough to conclude that it "makes the case for M4A?"

How is that logically possible?

Everybody, yourself included, clamoring to defend the intention of the study to undercut medicare-for-all is doing us all a disservice, apparently in the name of Koch-funded "facts" that don't even say what they wanted them to say.

Um, Bernie is the one holding up the study as reliable enough to say that it "makes the case for M4A." No one here is commenting on the validity - just the conclusions that it reached, and the author states that Bernie got it wrong. If anyone is doing the disservice it's those who post in rage before actually reading the post they are raging at. They are doing a disservice to their own credibility...

What is Sanders misrepresenting? He's not pretending the study is intentionally favoring medicare-for-all. He is Judoing their bullshit claim against them.

Since you seem to have avoided reading the actual factcheck.org article or even the OP....

As we reported in our story and video, the study did show a $2T savings (table 2) based on the M4A bill’s assumptions. But the study says the assumptions are unrealistic.

To say the study is “making the case for Medicare for All,” as @SenSanders said, is misleading spin.

“Proponents are perfectly free to argue for those provider cuts and to say that THEY believe M4A will therefore lower national health spending, — and also to cite whatever data they want in support of their arguments, from any study they find credible,” Blahous told us. “What they shouldn’t say is that I also reached that conclusion, because that’s incorrect. That finding should not be attributed to me or to my study.”

We take no position on “Medicare-for-all” and we can’t say if Blahous’ study is or is not influenced by donors to the Mercatus Center. But we can say that Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez are misrepresenting the study’s conclusions.

Is that clearer?

[JCanete]

113. First of all, the study did not attempt to point out 2 trillion dollars in savings. That was a

mistake. It did not emphasize that fact and then say BUT this is unrealistic. Sanders doesn't have to buy into the whole study to use it against people who are using it against medicare-for-all. If their own numbers accidentally support his claims he can simply use the study to show that even they can't seem to demonize the plan effectively. That is not at all the characterization you are giving to him, that he is "embracing" this study. That's just convenient, but thin, bullshit.

[ehrnst]

223. That is not what the study author says. You may think he's evil, however

it is a study, and that is a different thing than just the bill alone. Sanders could have just pulled that number from his bill to defend it, but he states that a study 'showed' that he was right. And when he pulled it from the study, and cited the study, he misrepresented what the study (good, bad or evil or mistaken it may be) showed concerning Medicare for All.

Sanders doesn't have to buy into the whole study to use it against people who are using it against medicare-for-all.

Again... factchecking something Sanders says, and finding it less than factual does not = "against medicare-for-all." That strawman is taking a beating around here.

That is not at all the characterization you are giving to him, that he is "embracing" this study

.

Let me thank the Koch brothers, of all people, for sponsoring a study that shows that Medicare for All would save the American people $2 trillion over a 10-year period.” He's citing it. He doesn't have to "embrace it," he just needs to be accurate in what the study shows, and according to the author (of a study that Bernie feels is valid enough to cite) states that isn't the case. If Sanders didn't need an author of a study to validate his MFA bill, then he could have just cited his bill - but he is the one who brought the Mercatus study into the statement, and that means that he feels that it's worthy of citing.

That's just convenient, but thin, bullshit.

That's a description of the demonization of reputable fact checking orgs is when they don't confirm your bias.

[JCanete]

224. I don't think him evil. I think he either has a very strong bias that colors his research and its

presentation, or thinks this is how politics is played anyway and all is fair in your pursuit of a world in your image(which I don't believe by the way), but I do know that the Koch's funded him and his study because they liked the cut of his jib. That means they were expecting a certian result from it. By the way, they don't have to be capital E Evil either, they just have to have a low opinion of a lot of human life for whatever reasons.

You keep repeating Sanders snaky jab at the Koch's for the blunder as him actually thanking them for sponsoring a study. You know there's nothing sincere about that...its irony. He doesn't necessarily need it, but its a powerful Judo move in this debate over healthcare. They said "best case costs the government 32 TRILLION DOLLARS"...he's saying "EXACTLY, THANK YOU." How does this keep missing with you?

[ehrnst]

226. From the abstract, since you seem to not want to acknowlege it:

The top line of the paper’s abstract says that the bill “would, under conservative estimates, increase federal budget commitments by approximately $32.6 trillion during its first 10 years of full implementation.” According to the paper, even doubling all “currently projected federal individual and corporate income tax collections would be insufficient to finance the added federal costs of the plan.”

Interesting, now you are going the "well he didn't mean it!!!" route. That's new. Curious as to why Sanders didn't say that he was "just kidding" in his angry tweetstorm.

No, methinks he was serious.

And whatever evil does or doesn't lurk in Blahous' heart, not agreeing with Senator Sanders does not automatically mean that "they just have to have a low opinion of a lot of human life for whatever reasons."

And actually the study was far more generous to the idea of M4A than most other conservative analysts. Bernie could have thanked him for that more accurately.

Larry Levitt's twitter feed goes into more depth:

Link to tweet

And no, Larry is not "funded by the Koch Brothers," nor does he "have a low opinion of human life for whatever reasons." FYI "quibbling" is not something someone does when they cite a study.

[JCanete]

228. hehe, nice, exept that I did and cross posted with it myself.

[JCanete]

229. You think it was heartfelt? I don't even fucking get it. The ridiculous statements here by some

people thinking Sanders actually giving credit to the Kochs or aligning with them on this in any way is pathetic. That's reptty damn obvious when sanders said this is what they accidentaly said in the study.

[ehrnst]

230. I just said that he cited it as "showing" something that the author said it didn't.

I mean you can gnash your teeth at any strawman you like, but he cited it as saying something.

If he was joking, I don't understand why he didn't just say that in his twitter fit. Instead of accusing factcheck.org of "endorsing" the conclusions of the study, which they clearly didn't.

Is that clearer?

I don't even fucking get it.

True, but it doesn't stop you from hanging on for dear life to the idea that there is no way Sanders misrepresented the study, and that factcheck.org/politifact/WAPO are not reputable, and are out to "attack Bernie."

[JCanete]

232. no he's not joking about using the study's numbers against it. Even the abstract cites the

number Sanders is citing. It literally gives us these numbers. It gives us these numbers to tell us "LOOK AT THE SIGNIFICANT SPENDING INCREASES", and then, without numbers simply says, boiled down, "we think it will be even worse."


The problem here is that those SIGNIFICANT SPENDING INCREASES are actually savings. What part are you still misunderstanding?

[ehrnst]

233. The all caps don't give you more cred...

And no the study doesn't "show" what Sanders says it shows, no matter how many times you repeat it or hit ALL CAPS. But it does show more of a postive veiw than many conservative analysis.

“It’s a surprisingly positive view of Medicare for All from a very conservative research institute,” Larry Levitt, a health-care expert at the Kaiser Family Foundation, said of the Mercatus report. “According to the analysis, you could provide universal coverage with no patient cost-sharing and actually spend less on health care than we would under the status quo.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/does-bernie-sanderss-health-plan-cost-33-trillion--or-save-2-trillion/2018/07/31/d178b14e-9432-11e8-a679-b09212fb69c2_story.html

[JCanete]

234. the all caps was to empmahsise how loud I thought the point the study was trying to make was,

given just how obfuscating its presentation of those facts were, which by the way, you have yet to address. Did the study at any point say "if we believe Sanders numbers, this is a savings of 2 trillion dollars, But..." no, it just frames it all as a cost to government, but its Sanders who's doing the spinning?

[SkyDancer]

74. PNHP responded to Factcheck.org's tweets

and I posted about it in a thread here https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211030342

They stand with Bernie.

[jalan48]

75. +1000

[ehrnst]

87. They also missed the point, along with Sanders

Last edited Thu Aug 23, 2018, 08:42 AM - Edit history (1)

In case you missed it:

And to say, as @SenSanders tweeted, that we are putting our “blind faith in a far right-wing economist” is wrong. We took no position on the M4A bill or the study by Charles Blahous of the Mercatus Center study.

In fact, we said in our story, “We’re not suggesting the assumptions made in the Sanders bill are wrong, only that they aren’t Blahous’ assumptions.”…

I understand that M4A is a very emotional issue, but no one is making any judgement on M4A itself - just if Sanders misrepresented the conclusions of the study, and the author of the study said he did.

[SkyDancer]

138. Nope not all

and the result?

The Koch funded think tank is now in damage control & trying to walk back the results of the study showing Medicare For All saves people $.

LA Times article here "A Koch-funded think tank tries hard to pretend that it didn't find savings from Bernie Sanders' Medicare plan"

.......snippets...

We know this because Mercatus has sent out several emails pushing back against reports about the finding. And the paper’s author, Mercatus fellow Charles Blahous, took to the opinion page of the Wall Street Journal to complain that “some have seized on a scenario in my estimates showing a slight decline in projected total public and private health expenditures under Medicare for All.”

Among those who “seized” on the scenario is Sanders himself, who crowed about it on Twitter after the paper was published at the end of July, mischievously getting the Koch brothers into his tweet because, why not?

We know this because Mercatus has sent out several emails pushing back against reports about the finding. And the paper’s author, Mercatus fellow Charles Blahous, took to the opinion page of the Wall Street Journal to complain that “some have seized on a scenario in my estimates showing a slight decline in projected total public and private health expenditures under Medicare for All.”

Among those who “seized” on the scenario is Sanders himself, who crowed about it on Twitter after the paper was published at the end of July, mischievously getting the Koch brothers into his tweet because, why not?

More at link.

Odd thing that a Koch funded study is having to walk back its findings but hey!

[ehrnst]

160. You got some things confused...

Odd thing that a Koch funded study is having to walk back its findings but hey!

The study author didn't "walk back" his findings. He said that Sanders misrepresented his conclusions.

Sanders said, "Let me thank the Koch Brothers of all people for sponsoring a study that shows that Medicare for All would save the American people $2 trillion over a 10-year period. … That is what is in the study of the Mercatus Center."

And the LA times writer (who is clearly angry about Sanders being fact checked) got this wrong:

The problem with Blahous’ complaint, as it happens, is that he actually did find that the Sanders plan could reduce overall healthcare costs. That conclusion is right there on page 18 of his 24-page paper. Under the assumptions in the Sanders plan, he writes, “aggregate health expenditures remain virtually unchanged: national personal healthcare costs decrease by less than 2%, while total health expenditures decrease by only 4%, even after assuming substantial administrative cost savings.”

Here is what Blahous says:

Miller-Lewis referred to figures not highlighted in the report that show that between 2022 and 2031, the currently projected cost of health care expenditures in the U.S. of $59.4 trillion would dip to $57.6 trillion under the “Medicare-for-all” plan. That’s how Sanders arrives at his claim that the study “shows that Medicare for All would save the American people $2 trillion over a 10 year period.” (See Table 2.)

The Assumptions

In an email to FactCheck.org, Blahous said he didn’t highlight that figure because he doesn’t think it’s realistic.

As Blahous wrote in the fourth sentence of his abstract, “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 health care providers operating under M4A will be reimbursed at rates more than 40 percent lower than those currently paid by private health insurance.”

Blahous used the text of Sanders’ bill to guide assumptions. For example, he said, the bill says health care providers will be reimbursed for patients at Medicare payment rates. Blahous said Medicare payment rates are projected by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to be roughly 40 percent lower than those paid by private insurers, so he built those assumed savings into his estimate.

But in the report, Blahous cautions that the assumption is suspect.

Blahous, July 2018: It is not precisely predictable how hospitals, physicians, and other healthcare providers would respond to a dramatic reduction in their reimbursements under M4A, well below their costs of care for all categories of patients combined. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Office of the Actuary has projected that even upholding current-law reimbursement rates for treating Medicare beneficiaries alone would cause nearly half of all hospitals to have negative total facility margins by 2040. The same study found that by 2019, over 80 percent of hospitals will lose money treating Medicare patients — a situation M4A would extend, to a first approximation, to all US patients. Perhaps some facilities and physicians would be able to generate heretofore unachieved cost savings that would enable their continued functioning without significant disruptions. However, at least some undoubtedly would not, thereby reducing the supply of healthcare services at the same time M4A sharply increases healthcare demand. It is impossible to say precisely how much the confluence of these factors would reduce individuals’ timely access to healthcare services, but some such access problems almost certainly must arise.

Anticipating these difficulties, some other studies have assumed that M4A payment rates must exceed current-law Medicare payment rates to avoid sending facilities into deficit on average or to avoid triggering unacceptable reductions in the provision and quality of healthcare services. These alternative payment rate assumptions substantially increase the total projected costs of M4A.

Or, as Blahous told us via email, achieving a 40 percent reduction in reimbursement rates is an “unlikely outcome” and “actual costs are likely to be substantially greater.”

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/08/the-cost-of-medicare-for-all/

But I see that the minute "the media" gets "behind Sanders," then they cease to be "fake news."

Trump supporters aren't the only ones with that view of the media. When people become extreme on either left or right, they often find that their credibility ends up in a pine box.

[leftstreet]

111. +1

[Uncle Joe]

116. Thank you SkyDancer.

[aidbo]

77. Charles and David thank you for your work.

[ehrnst]

86. Are you saying that Factcheck.org is run by the Koch Bros?

Any evidence?

[aidbo]

142. Haha, no.

No, But I do know that the Kochs are funding that type of study to try to shift public opinion about Medicare-for-all.

I’m sure they would appreciate that your knee-jerk hatred of Senator Sanders has lead you to further their obfuscations about Medicare-for-all.

In other words, I’m saying that you’re doing their work for them. They should be grateful to you.

[ehrnst]

148. Haha, no. But, interestingly, if you replace "the Kochs" in your post with "George Soros..."

And "Sanders" with "Trump"

And "medicare for all" with "collusion"

You have a classic Trump supporter boilerplate response to any news item that points out that he lied.

How about that.

Just post is that you think I'm on the "Koch bros/Soros payroll" and you'll have a twofer!

[aidbo]

167. I never said you're on their payroll, that's just something you made up to imply I'm nutty.

I’m just saying you’re doing their work for them.

For free.
Like a tool.

All because you can’t stand senator Sanders, and are so jealous of how his ideas and policies are resonating with the majority of left-leaning people and indeed probably the majority of all people in this country.

[ehrnst]

168. Ah, so I'm "doing the Koch Bros work" and I am 'jealous of Bernie.'

OK - I'll bite.

Why do you think I am doing the work of Koch Bros, I mean, I've racked up nearly 15,000 posts here, and managed to "disguise myself" pretty well if indeed I'm in it for them.

And tell me why I'm "jealous" of Bernie? Do you think I'm running for Senate in Vermont?




So, are you "doing Putin's work for him?" Should he "be grateful to you?"

Because that seems to make more sense, doesn't it?

[aidbo]

176. I'm not sure if you're intentionally misunderstanding me, or what.

I’m not saying you work for Chuck & Davey. I’m saying your petty hatred of Sanders has caused you to (unwittingly?) further the cause of those two brothers.

Incidentally, you used quotes there of things I did not write. I never said you disguised yourself. I’m sure you think you’re doing the right thing.

And I already wrote why I think you’re jealous of Bernie, because his ideas and policies appeal and resonate with the majority of the democratic electorate.

And as a corollary to your “I’ve racked up nearly 15,000 posts here,” (that’s how quotes work, by the way), I’ve only made nearly one tenth the posts you have in like 3 years.

My low post count belies your weird attempt at verbal Jiu Jitsu. if I’m working for Putin, even unwittingly, then I’m doing a shitty job and you should thank me for being such a lazy Russian troll.

[ehrnst]

188. So, again....

Why would I/am I doing "Chuck and Davey's work for them" if not to be paid. As I pointed out, if I was, why would I have lasted so long here?

And I already wrote why I think you’re jealous of Bernie, because his ideas and policies appeal and resonate with the majority of the democratic electorate.

Again... Why would I be jealous? of Sander's idea's and policies appealing and resonating with "the majority of the Democratic electorate?" Also - could you specify which policies and ideas, and what statistics you are citing concerning the "majority of the Democratic electorate?" I understand that many of his fans refuse to join or identify as "Democrats." Perhaps you have those numbers as well?

To simply say that "you are jealous of Bernie because of his appeal and resonance, because that makes you jealous" is rather circular and doesn't explain why I would be jealous of those things.

My low post count belies your weird attempt at verbal Jiu Jitsu.

I have no idea what you mean here.

if I’m working for Putin, even unwittingly, then I’m doing a shitty job and you should thank me for being such a lazy Russian troll.

Just sayin' that accusing you of "doing the work of Putin" makes just as much sense as accusing a longtime DU member in good standing of "doing the work of the Koch Bros for them." It's called irony, and unfortunately went over your head. I'll be sure to use the sarcasm smilie next time.

But I do want to hear why I would be "jealous" of Bernie's appeal and whatall.

[aidbo]

193. You keep asking why like a child. I've answered all your questions.

I cannot speculate to your motives.

[ehrnst]

217. Can't answer, so you stonewall.

I can understand that. You said something in anger that confuses even you, and you don't want to acknowledge it.

I suggest that you use the Ignore feature to save yourself future embarrassment.

[ucrdem]

208. It was Sanders who gave them a platform by thanking them for their study.

Thus adding even more useless noise to the healthcare conversation which he's already badly confused with his deceptively named proposal. If the Koch plan is to give Trump, Ryan and McConnell as clear a shot as possible at killing the ACA, and it is, they're making progress.

[Uncle Joe]

209. Bernie didn't give them anything that they didn't already have.

That "study" would've set a false frame regardless by taking the issue head on, Bernie brought out the critics of the report as well to counter Blahous' and Koch Brothers deceptive practice.

That report was grotesquely distorted.

[ehrnst]

235. True this - if he thinks they are as off target and inaccurate as his latest tweets indicate

then calling attention to them, and making a claim about what their study "showed" wasn't such a good move.

I mean, Gary Hart thought no one would take him up on his offer to "follow him everywhere."

Hubris.

[Uncle Joe]

239. Yes because 400 million dollars just won't buy you a platform nowadays with inflation and all,

if Bernie hadn't said anything this "study" would probably have never seen the light of day..for very long anyway...it would've just drifted away, never to be mentioned again.

'We're Just Getting Started': Koch Brothers Plan to Spend Up to $400 Million on Midterm Elections


(snip)

Surrounded by 500 donors who each pledged $100,000 annually to Koch-related causes, Charles and David Koch, the conservative love children of Thanos and Sarah Palin, declared that they would spend between $300 million and $400 million to “shape” the 2018 midterm according to the Associated Press, who agreed not to photograph or name the donors because ... something, something, “journalistic integrity,” yada yada “freedom of the press.”

The Koch group condemned the “divisiveness” of the Trump administration, according to the Washington Post, despite the fact that much of the money is expected to go towards to efforts that benefit Republican candidates who have turned a blind eye to Donald Trump’s idiotic policies and blatant racism at every turn.

(snip)

The rebranded Koch brothers are currently funding organizations like Americans for Prosperity, who quietly funnel “dark money” to candidates while not coincidentally, funding efforts to stifle laws that require groups to publicly disclose political donations. Americans for Prosperity has already committed to spending seven figures in their effort to ensure the confirmation of Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

While some may say that the billionaires’ money subverts the intention of a true democracy and changes it to an oligarchy, the members of the press snacking on jumbo shrimp cocktail dipped in caviar at the luxurious summit of billionaires in the mountains of Colorado Springs would assure us that the Koch brothers’ goals are not nefarious.

(snip)

https://www.theroot.com/were-just-getting-started-koch-brothers-plan-to-spend-1827968525

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1016214287

[ismnotwasm]

84. K&R

[dawg]

121. I'm with Bernie on this one.

Both Tapper and Factcheck twisted themselves into pretzels with their "centrist" value signalling.

[JHan]

128. So Factcheck and Jake Tapper are in a centrist conspiracy?

"centrist value signalling"

come on man.


LOL LOL.

[dawg]

130. You're the only one talking about a "conspiracy".

I'm talking about the attitude, so prevalent in the mainstream media, that issues like single-payer are extremist and not to be taken seriously. Tapper's "fact check" was extremely misleading - referring to additional government costs while ignoring the overall savings to Americans as a whole.

But you seem cool with that sort of thing, so ... okay!

[JHan]

134. Dude , really...

this is embarrassing.

Rather than deal with the substantiveness of what Tapper and fact check said, you would rather claim they're both "value signalling" - You are the one suggesting some effort by both Tapper and factcheck to kill single payer - you prove that by telling me "I'm talking about the attitude, so prevalent in the mainstream media, that issues like single-payer are extremist and not to be taken seriously. "

deal with the point Tapper is making instead of strawmanning some insidious motivation from either him or factcheck.

Seriously this is no different to Trump supporters claiming criticism of him is "fake news", and "Librul hate" .

It's possible to like a politician and acknowledge they fuck up occasionally ..... okay?

And EDIT: Critiquing a plan doesn't mean one is against Single Payer or Universal Health Care. This ain't hard to grasp.

[dawg]

171. Tapper focused on the additional costs borne by the government, without ...

acknowledging the fact that those costs were *more* than offset by corresponding savings by individuals and businesses no longer having to pay large premiums to private insurance companies. This was profoundly misleading, and he has since apologized and clarified his remarks. (But only after he received push back.)

Factcheck editorialized that the author of the study (funded by the Koch brothers) didn't actually believe in the assumptions behind the numbers that they had cited. While well within their rights to editorialize, this goes beyond simple fact checking. The facts of the matter are pretty simple: the numbers cited in the study indicate that although government expenditures would go up, total expenditures would go down. Had Bernie lied about the contents of the study, factcheck would have been correct to point that out.

But that was not the case. Bernie was correct about the numbers used and their implications. No need for a fact check here, right?

But, no. They felt the need to push back anyway. The felt they needed to point out that the right-wing author of the study didn't actually believe in the assumptions underlying the numbers that he used. Is that true? I would imagine so. But it is irrelevant to the point that Bernie was making. It just one more media attempt at "balance".

[ehrnst]

185. How does that address the difference between what Sanders said about the study conclusions

and what the study author said about the study conclusions?

They were different.

Factcheck editorialized that the author of the study (funded by the Koch brothers) didn't actually believe in the assumptions behind the numbers that they had cited.

No, factcheck quoted the author of the study that Sanders got the conclusions of his study wrong. Blahous had his conclusions on the numbers that were in Sander's bill - stated in the abstract, and they were not what Sanders claimed. There was no "editorializing," no matter how much you want to believe that.

The facts of the matter are pretty simple: the numbers cited in the study indicate that although government expenditures would go up, total expenditures would go down. Had Bernie lied about the contents of the study, factcheck would have been correct to point that out.

No, Factcheck didn't comment on the factuality of the study or the accuracy of the numbers - only Sanders' representation of the study conclusions. Bernie lied/misrepresented about the conclusions of the study when he said “Let me thank the Koch brothers, of all people, for sponsoring a study that shows that Medicare for All would save the American people $2 trillion over a 10-year period.”

Again, this is like a kid going to coach and asking, "Can I be on the team, coach?" and Coach replies, "You can be on the team if you do well at the tryouts." Then the kid goes home and says, "Coach said I can be on the team!!!" Yes, coach did say those words, but coach didn't say that he would be on the team," as the kid is leading his parents to believe.

“Proponents are perfectly free to argue for those provider cuts and to say that THEY believe M4A will therefore lower national health spending, — and also to cite whatever data they want in support of their arguments, from any study they find credible,” Blahous told us. “What they shouldn’t say is that I also reached that conclusion, because that’s incorrect. That finding should not be attributed to me or to my study.”

[Uncle Joe]

189. Bernie never used the word "conclusion" this reminds me too much of Trump's continuous use

of the word "collusion" to distract from the rest of the charges or potential charges against his ilk, bank fraud, tax fraud, money laundering means nothing because there was no "collusion."

Blahous and Factcheck used the same lies and twist of words "Bernie said it was the conclusion," bullshit and Tapper even took it a step further by switching Bernie's words of savings for the "American People" to the "government" would actually spend more as if Bernie was lying about that.

Listen to the video of Bernie speaking about this subject, he never said it was Blahous' "conclusion" under the former's alternate reality scenario.

Bernie said the study supported Medicare for All as is in his bill by citing 2 trillion dollars in savings for the American People over ten years and "that what is in the study" those are the facts, the Koch Brothers, Tapper and Fact check can't change that Inconvenient Truth no matter how much they want to.

[ehrnst]

191. And here we go again... he said "shows"

“Let me thank the Koch brothers, of all people, for sponsoring a study that shows that Medicare for All would save the American people $2 trillion over a 10-year period.”

And Blahous said the report did not.

“To argue that we can get to that level of savings by getting rid of the health insurance middleman is inconsistent with my study,” Blahous said. “To lend credibility to the $2 trillion savings number specifically, one would have to argue that we can make those 40 percent cuts to providers at the same time as increasing demand by about 11 percent, without triggering disruptions of access to care that lawmakers and the public find unacceptable.”

“Proponents are perfectly free to argue for those provider cuts and to say that THEY believe M4A will therefore lower national health spending, — and also to cite whatever data they want in support of their arguments, from any study they find credible,” Blahous told us. “What they shouldn’t say is that I also reached that conclusion, because that’s incorrect. That finding should not be attributed to me or to my study.”

If you are now reduced to arguing if 'shows" doesn't mean "concludes" or you are truly scraping the bottom of the barrel to make 3= 2.

[Uncle Joe]

194. That part is correct and IT IS IN he study insofar as Blahous was using Bernie's

existing Medicare for All bill in the Senate to grade but Bernie never claimed it was the total conclusion based on Blahous' conservative/libertarian alternate reality scenario.

“Let me thank the Koch brothers, of all people, for sponsoring a study that shows that Medicare for All would save the American people $2 trillion over a 10-year period.” but you omitted this part "I suspect that's not what the Koch Brothers intended to do but that's what is in the study of the Mercatus Center; an organization that is significantly funded by the Koch Brothers."

And it is in the study.

So the study does show 2 trillion dollars in savings for the American People over ten years using Bernie's Medicare for all Bill as written.

The author then goes on to project his conservative/libertarian viewpoint in a skewed alternate reality scenario based on nothing but his own highly subjective opinion but his "conclusion" is separate from what is actually written in the bill.

[Nanjeanne]

195. Oh dear. There you go clearly stating what happened. Good luck with that!

[ehrnst]

196. Again... the authors own words:

Said Blahous: “If you ask somebody ‘How much would something cost?’ and if they responded with, ‘Well, if you assume X the cost would be Y, but that’s an unrealistic assumption, actual costs would be higher’ – it’s not accurate to say ‘He says the cost is Y!’ When I wrote that ‘actual costs’ would be higher, I meant it. And I haven’t simply said that in response to comments like the candidate’s – I had previously put it front and center on the study itself.”

So the author is saying that his study didn't support what Sander said it did.

And again... A kid asks coach, "Can I be on the team?" Coach said, "You can be on the team if you do well at tryouts" Kid goes home and tells parents, "Guess what - coach says I can be on the team!" The coaches words don't "show" that the kid will be on the team, as the kid is telling his parents.

It really doesn't matter if the coach is conservative, or doesn't like the kid, or likes the kid, or has favorites, or is vegetarian. The coach did indeed say that "You can be on the team" exactly those words, but the kid only hear part of what coach is saying. And if the parents say, "You told that kid he could be on the team!" and the coach says, "I did say that he could be on the team IF he does well in the tryouts" and the parents said, "YOUR VERY OWN WORDS SHOWED THAT HE COULD BE ON THE TEAM, SO THAT MEANS HE IS ON THE TEAM!" WE KNOW WHAT YOU SAID - DON'T TRY TO TELL US OTHERWISE. You would say those parents weren't getting what the coach was saying either. You would also not think that they were managing their emotions very well, if they couldn't even listen to what the coach said he himself meant.

Cherry picking words or sentences to make your case usually means you don't have much of one to begin with.

Once could pick out certain words in this post, without context, and in isolation, say that I indeed thought that factcheck was wrong.

I think that it's significant that Sanders didn't include a link to the study in his fundraising email.

I think that it's amazing that Sanders has gotten people convinced that while the study author isn't competent to articulate what his analysis was, he holds the study up as being a very competent "proof" that his own analysis of his own bill is.

Like the director of a play who quotes a critic that he claims has no understanding of drama for praising the production by quoting "It's the best production of Shakespeare presented this year!" when what the critic wrote was "It's is the best production of Shakespeare presented this year, if you only go to high school productions." And the director said, "The words "It's is the best production of Shakespeare presented this year," are there, and those are the correct ones, and that is what he meant. That hack critic even said our show was the best - that shows it must be good! Become a supporter now!"

[Uncle Joe]

197. Blahous' "alternate reality" projections are riddled with mathematical flaws all skewed

because of his conservative/ libertarian point of view, surely you can see that?

[ehrnst]

198. Trying to change the topic is not working.

The topic of the factcheck.org article is - did the study "support Medicare for All" like Sanders claimed. Did Sanders misrepresent the study's findings?

In fact, we said in our story, “We’re not suggesting the assumptions made in the Sanders bill are wrong, only that they aren’t Blahous’ assumptions.”…

… And Jake said in the video that we were not making “a judgement on the viability of M4A,” but the presentation of the study by Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez “lacks a lot of context.”

Whether or not Blahous is conservative, libertarian or "correct" or the errand boy of the Koch Bros isn't what factcheck is talking about, or purporting or disputing, even though you really really want it to be, and so does Sanders.

It's about whether Sanders misrepresented the findings of the study concerning the funding/cost stats, which according to the study author, he did.

We take no position on “Medicare-for-all” and we can’t say if Blahous’ study is or is not influenced by donors to the Mercatus Center. But we can say that Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez are misrepresenting the study’s conclusions.

So the validity or non-validity of what the Mercatur projections had isn't the topic - it's Sanders statements concerning what the study "supported" when it did not. You can say that he is not credible because of his bias, but that also means that Sanders is using a less than credible source to support his claims.

[Uncle Joe]

199. Fact check is wrong and misrepresenting what Bernie actually stated and from your

own previous correction post of mine, "shows" is the keyword not "supports" and the study does show 2 trillion dollars in savings for the American People over a ten year period.

“Let me thank the Koch brothers, of all people, for sponsoring a study that shows that Medicare for All would save the American people $2 trillion over a 10-year period.” but you omitted this part "I suspect that's not what the Koch Brothers intended to do but that's what is in the study of the Mercatus Center; an organization that is significantly funded by the Koch Brothers."

And my post was on topic because despite Blahous' mathematical skewing toward the Koch point of view the two trillion dollars in savings actually based on Bernie's bill is in the study.

Bernie just spoke an Inconvenient Truth, the Koch Brothers and Blahous just didn't like it, tough noogies.

[ehrnst]

200. If trying to split hairs between

"Shows" and "supports" is all you got - again, you are scraping the bottom of the barrel.

But seeing as Jacobin is your go to for "facts" you pretty much started there when you saw the words "Bernie misrepresented" and lost all objectivity.

Bernie is human. And indeed he makes mistakes. Saying that he misrepresented something- either carelessly or intentionally - does not mean that one is accusing him of being wrong about everything. Unfortunately, I think he believes that, and attracts people with the same "all or nothing" worldview - any mention of grey areas is "selling out!"

The problem with the binary mindset, comforting as it may be, is that when you go to an extreme position, you might also be extremely mistaken.

[Uncle Joe]

201. Binary is trashing a message simply because you don't like the source

as in Jacobin.

How about the LA Times?

A Koch-funded think tank tries hard to pretend that it didn't find savings from Bernie Sanders' Medicare plan


Medicare plan

(snip)

What’s overlooked in all these cavils about Sanders’ crowing about Blahous’ finding is that the champion cherry-picker in the discussion is Charles Blahous. The cherry he picks is the cost of Medicare for All to the federal government, and he fills a bushel basket with his harvest. “Paying for every American’s healthcare expenses would increase federal spending by $32.6 trillion over the first decade,” he writes. “Even if Congress were to double what it collects in individual and corporate income taxes, there still wouldn’t be enough money added to the federal coffers to finance the costs of this plan.”

Notice what he did there? He pretended that the only economic effect of the plan would be to drive up government spending, without netting out the savings reaped by businesses and individuals by eliminating premiums, deductibles and co-pays. Nor does he factor in the value to individuals and society of the expanded services advocated by Sanders. Sure, giving everyone dental and vision coverage will cost money. But in return, everyone gets dental and vision care. Isn’t that a positive?

In other words, Blahous counted all the increases in costs and attributed them all to the government, without placing his government spending figures in the context of the reduced spending by individuals and businesses or the gains in health services. That’s some world-class cherry-picking right there.

(snip)

So, sure, let’s acknowledge that Sanders built his Medicare for All plan on a foundation of assumptions about costs and savings. But Blahous built his attack on a foundation of assumptions about costs and savings, just a different foundation. To declare his assumptions credible and Sanders’ not is to give up the fight for universal healthcare before the bugle is even blown. That’s what Blahous was hoping for, and no one should let him get away with it.


http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-blahous-sanders-20180822-story.html#

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1016214086

Bernie is human and he can make mistakes just like everyone else but this wasn't one them. This was just right wing propaganda pushed by the author and snapped up by some at best gullible "fact checkers" because they didn't like the growing popularity of Medicare for All.

But you go ahead and side with the conservative/libertarian Koch Brothers' propaganda all you want.

[ehrnst]

202. "they didn't like the growing popularity of Medicare for All. "

You only missed a gif of a mustache twirling villain...

Yeah, I'll believe factcheck.org over any politiican - especially in a re-election campaign.

And I'll believe WAPO and Politifact over Jacobin, which seems to prey on gullible lefty men who already equate anything but praise for Senator Sanders as "siding with the conservative/libertarian Koch Brothers' propaganda."

Yeah, that's some credibility right there...That's totally not a Trump supporter worthy black/white dramatic accusation of someone who made a point about their guy.

Beware that dualistic worldview - it can come back to bite you in the ass.

[Uncle Joe]

203. What, no comment on the LA Times article that I just posted?

[ehrnst]

204. I commented on the LA times article already on this thread.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211032432#post160


No comment on my gif?

[JHan]

212. I was going to reply directly to dawg, but your response is better than I came up with.

+++

[ehrnst]

153. Ah, I see that accusing the media of being "fake news" when they report something about your

favorite candidate that isn't praise isn't just for Trumpeteers anymore.

[dawg]

169. Your assumption is incorrect.

Bernie's involvement in this is irrelevant to me, and I do not support his potential candidacy for 2020.

[ehrnst]

173. Well, I think that my representation of your assumption is more correct than your representation.

Just like everyone here who says that Blahous can't be correct about the assumption of his study - because Bernie says something different.

I think that the virtue signaling going on here is coming from you.

[dawg]

178. In other words, you're gonna believe what you want to believe, no matter what I say.

Got it.

For the record, I'm not a Sanders supporter and I very much hope that he does not run for President again. He's a divisive figure who does more to set back the progressive agenda than he does to advance it.

But I'm not going to stand up and cheer when our blathering pundit class gives him the same slanted treatment they gave Hillary, Obama, Kerry, Dean, and Gore before him.

They (Politico in this instance) accused Obama of the 2013 "Lie of the Year" for a statement that was essentially true. But I guess I'm a wacky conspiracy theorist for thinking *that* was an unfair "fact check".

Meanwhile, Paul Ryan was getting awards for fiscal responsibility while producing budgets that were more fantasy-based than Game of Thrones.

This urge for false "balance" is partly to blame for Donald Trump being elected President in the first place, and incidents like this one make me very fearful that no lessons have been learned from that at all.

[ehrnst]

180. In the same way you are going to believe what you want to about

Sanders misrepresenting the study conclusions.

Got it.

They (Politico in this instance) accused Obama of the 2013 "Lie of the Year" for a statement that was essentially true. But I guess I'm a wacky conspiracy theorist for thinking *that* was an unfair "fact check".

That was arguably the most discussed misrepresentation of the year. I cringed when he said that, because he was wrong - no one with employer-sponsored health care is guaranteed to keep their health insurance policy, with or without the ACA.

Your employer can change the policy, without your consent, and without notice. They can decide that they are not going to offer coverage if they are small enough. He was wrong. And he apologized to mitigate the damage, unlike Bernie Sanders ever has or ever will.

If he had said, "There will be changes - but the majority of insured people will still be getting their health care through their employer, who will make the choice about the policy they offer employees, as they do now." It would not have been as simple, but it would have avoided discrediting the ACA to many who were against it before they even knew what was in it.

Boiling down the complicated health care law to a soundbite proved treacherous, even for its promoter-in-chief. Obama and his team made matters worse, suggesting they had been misunderstood all along. The stunning political uproar led to this: a rare presidential apology.

For all of these reasons, PolitiFact has named "If you like your health care plan, you can keep it," the Lie of the Year for 2013. Readers in a separate online poll overwhelmingly agreed with the choice. (PolitiFact first announced its selection on CNN's The Lead with Jake Tapper.)

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/dec/12/lie-year-if-you-like-your-health-care-plan-keep-it/

Yes, Politifact was right, Obama did lie, whether or not he meant ill by it, or whether it was simply a gaffe. And yes, the ramifications were enormous. "lie of the year?" - that depends on the criteria.

That's what is going to happen to M4A - no matter how feasible - if Sanders goes down that same path.

[dawg]

182. Damn ...

Even willing to defend that indefensible Politifact lie of the year.

We have nothing else to discuss.

[ehrnst]

183. I simply said that yes, Obama did not tell the truth about that, and yes, the ramifications were

enormous. Politico was not wrong to call what he said a lie.

Did I smear Obama? No. Did I agree that they should have made it "Lie of the Year?" No. Did you simply chose to believe whatever you wanted to about Obama despite the fact that no, people were not guaranteed to keep their health insurance? Yes.

Look in the mirror.

If you want to use that as an excuse to run because you have nothing you can rebut my post with, then I get it.

It's very embarassing to be corrected.

Sanders is defending the indefensible, and is doubling down. Obama apologized, and that mitigated some of the damage, but not all.

Bernie will tank his M4A before it ever gets to the floor if he doesn't learn from Obama's mistake.

[SteveMO]

179. Sanders criticized the Urban Institute too

Despite the fact that said Institute is not centrist or right wing, but left-leaning.

[ehrnst]

184. There is no tolerance for dissent with Sanders.

Walking lockstep makes for a dynamic movement, but movements are not campaigns.

Politicians have different responsibilities than leaders of movements. Those who try to do both often fail at being effective at either.

MLK could not have done what he did for his movement attending committee meetings.

Gloria Steinem could not have done what she did for the feminist movement marking up the Farm Bill.

I wish that Bernie would choose one, and give his all to it. Being the leader of a movement might be better - lots of speeches in front of cheering crowds, no need to work with a team on administrivia that he hates.

[ehrnst]

154. So facts are "centrist" now.

If you substitute "centrist" with "liberal" you have a Trump supporter's critique of a CNN piece on Stormy Daniels.

[dawg]

170. The "facts" are on Bernie's side. (In this instance)

The numbers used in the study do indicate a large overall savings to Americans in general, despite the increased portion of those costs born by the government.

That is what the numbers used in the study show.

If the study didn't actually use those numbers, then Factcheck would be correct to point that out.

But that isn't the case.

However, they still felt the need to push back somehow. That typically happens with all proposals that are considered too "liberal" and outside of what the pundit class considers the mainstream consensus. This is the same impulse that led Politico to nominate a (basically true) statement from President Obama as 2013's "lie" of the year. It's the same impulse that fed the media's obsession with Hillary's emails. It's a real problem, and I resent the hell out of people who are more than willing to acknowledge it in some situations but than act like it's a crazy conspiracy theory in others.

[ehrnst]

174. No, the study author states those are not the conclusions the study reached.

He said it in his abstract:

“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 health care providers operating under M4A will be reimbursed at rates more than 40 percent lower than those currently paid by private health insurance.” (“M4A” is short for “Medicare-for-all.”)

Said Blahous: “If you ask somebody ‘How much would something cost?’ and if they responded with, ‘Well, if you assume X the cost would be Y, but that’s an unrealistic assumption, actual costs would be higher’ – it’s not accurate to say ‘He says the cost is Y!’ When I wrote that ‘actual costs’ would be higher, I meant it. And I haven’t simply said that in response to comments like the candidate’s – I had previously put it front and center on the study itself.”

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/08/video-medicare-for-all-claims/

If the study didn't actually use those numbers, then Factcheck would be correct to point that out.

From Factcheck.org - the context of the numbers Sanders cherry picked.

“To argue that we can get to that level of savings by getting rid of the health insurance middleman is inconsistent with my study,” Blahous said. “To lend credibility to the $2 trillion savings number specifically, one would have to argue that we can make those 40 percent cuts to providers at the same time as increasing demand by about 11 percent, without triggering disruptions of access to care that lawmakers and the public find unacceptable.”

A kid goes to the coach and says, "Can I be on the team?" and Coach says, "You can if you do well at the tryouts." Kid goes home and says, "Mom, Dad - coach says I can be on the team!" Yes, coach did indeed say that, but the context was missing.

Another instance:

Remember when Obama said, "You didn't build that!" and the GOP misrepresented it to mean "you didn't build your businesses!"

Yes, Obama said that, but they left out the rest of the statement. When I would show the full video to right wingers, they would still shriek, "but he SAID "You didn't build that!!!" It's right there in the video!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" Obama's intent, and actual conclusion of his words were not what they were told by the GOP.

https://www.factcheck.org/2012/07/you-didnt-build-that-uncut-and-unedited/

Same thing is happening here.


One would have to ignore the abstract in order to make what Sanders said about the report conclusions true, just as one would have to ignore what Obama said he meant, and the full text of the speech, in order to say that the GOP was representing what he said accurately. They cherry picked the words, like Sanders cherry picked the numbers from this study, out of context, and misrepresented them.

We need to not act like the rightwing, and knee jerk responding to any fact-check that doesn't confirm our bias.

[dawg]

181. Do you deny that the numbers Sanders cited were reflected in the study?

Do you deny that Tapper's attempt to focus on governmental expenditures as opposed to total expenditures was misleading?

Can you reply to either of these questions without copy/pasting an irrelevant wall of text?

[ehrnst]

186. Well, seeing as Tapper has changed that part of the argument, and the conclusion is still the same.

And Tapper did go back and change the semantics, so no, he is not "misleading" anyone. The conclusions are the same. Sanders misrepresented the conclusions of the study, as per the author of the study.

Do you deny that the numbers Sanders cited were reflected in the study?

Again.... a kid goes to coach and says, "Can I be on the team?" and coach replies, "You can be on the team if you do well at tryouts."

The kid goes home and tells his parents, "Coach says I can be on the team!" One could say that yes, coach did say those words, but did not intend or communicate that the the kid would be on the team, as the kid is representing it to his parents. If one's parents went out and bought all the gear on the basis that the coach said that he "could be on the team" they would be very upset to find out that no, coach made no such representation to their child. If they were to continue to accuse coach of saying something that he didn't, after he told them what he said and what he meant, you'd say those parents were unreasonable....

“Let me thank the Koch brothers, of all people, for sponsoring a study that shows that Medicare for All would save the American people $2 trillion over a 10-year period.”

Sorry that too many words bother you. Trying to change the argument to be about the "figures in the study" instead of what the study "concluded about the figures" is what is making your claims about factcheck irrelevant.

[Gothmog]

125. This study does not support sanders' claims

[SidDithers]

256. #BernieMath...nt

Sid

[Cha]

263. lol