NY Times: Left-Leaning Economists Question Cost of Bernie Sanders’s Plans

[Cali_Democrat]

WASHINGTON — With his expansive plans to increase the size and role of government, Senator Bernie Sanders has provoked a debate not only with his Democratic rival for president, Hillary Clinton, but also with liberal-leaning economists who share his goals but question his numbers and political realism.

The reviews of some of these economists, especially on Mr. Sanders’s health care plans, suggest that Mrs. Clinton could have been too conservative in their debate last week when she said that his agenda in total would increase the size of the federal government by 40 percent. That level would surpass any government expansion since the buildup in World War II.

The increase could exceed 50 percent, some experts suggest, based on an analysis by a respected health economist that Mr. Sanders’s single-payer health plan could cost twice what the senator, who represents Vermont, asserts, and on critics’ belief that his economic assumptions are overly optimistic.

His campaign strongly contests both critiques, defending its numbers and attacking prominent critics as Clinton sympathizers and industry consultants.

Mr. Sanders, on “Fox News Sunday,” reiterated his oft-stated claim that progressive critics dispute: “A family right in the middle of the economy would pay $500 more in taxes and get a reduction in their health costs of $5,000.”

But by the reckoning of the left-of-center economists, none of whom are working for Mrs. Clinton, the new spending would add $2 trillion to $3 trillion a year on average to federal spending; by comparison, total federal spending is projected to be above $4 trillion in the next president’s first year.

Read more:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/16/us/politics/left-leaning-economists-question-cost-of-bernie-sanderss-plans.html?_r=0

[daleanime]

1. I love the reminder about where Hillary supporters.....

put anyone who disagrees with them.

[cosmicone]

2. This is what I wrote

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511240655#post3

[stopbush]

3. Yep. The truth is starting to come out about the actual costs.

I'm really disappointed that Bernie decided to low ball the costs of his plan. Free stuff with no costs to all but the 1%. That's the kind of bs Rs usually offer.

Bernie would have been better off being honest and saying what the true costs of the programs are, then work to convince people that it would all be worthwhile, even if it meant us all paying European-level taxes around 40%. Apparently, he realized that was a loser, so he went with the "offer them free shit" strategy instead.

Sad. A wasted opportunity to give Americans the option to vote for a more-socialist approach to governing, expenses and all.

Socialism's moment on the American political stage finally came, and Bernie punted.

[Cali_Democrat]

4. He low-balled the costs because he knows

nobody would vote for him if the true costs were revealed.

[Depaysement]

5. You're trotting out Austin Goolsbee

Maybe he leaned left while driving this morning. Other than that . . .

[Matariki]

7. Oh! I love how *one* Mr. Goolsbee becomes plural 'Left-Leaning Economists'

[Depaysement]

8. +1

[stopbush]

9. Goolsbee bio here:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austan_Goolsbee

[Depaysement]

11. Yes, thanks

I know who the guy is. Left-leaning is a peculiar use of the language. I could have given the reporter five or six names to look up without trying.

Yet another shoddy Clinton attack piece. And to think I used to like Hillary . . .

[Matariki]

6. 170 Economists Endorse Bernie Sanders’ Plan To Reform Wall St. And Rein In Greed

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/01/14/170-economists-bernie-sanders-plan-reform-wall-st-rein-greed.html

Cali, you can always pay or inveigle one or two 'experts' to say what you want to hear. Just ask the Climate Change deniers and the 'scientists' they paid to agree with them.

[stopbush]

10. You mean the way BS musta paid those 170 economists?

[kstewart33]

13. The 170 economists DID NOT ENDORSE BERNIE'S HEALTH CARE PLAN.

And Bernie's single payer health care plan is the subject of the NYT article.

How many are endorsing the single player plan? If you can find facts about this, please post.

[gyroscope]

14. The NY Times own economist Thomas Friedman endorses single payer

By Thomas L. Friedman
The New York Times, January 6, 2016

It’s time for a true nonpartisan extremist, one whose platform combines the following:

* A single-payer universal health care system. If it can work for Canada, Australia and Sweden and provide generally better health outcomes at lower prices, it can work for us, and get U.S. companies out of the health care business.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/06/opinion/up-with-extremism.html

[gyroscope]

23. Where did I say that?

please learn some basic English.

[kstewart33]

25. I would not count Friedman as an economist.

His columns are about foreign policy, with rare exception.

But let's call him an economist, for discussion sake. That's one. How many others?

It's not that economists oppose the idea of single payer. Heck, I love single payer in concept. It's the overwhelming financial cost of single payer. I'd rather get there by making steady gains that begin with improvements to Obamacare. If that's done right, we'll get to single payer. But we can't afford it in total right now.

Might you be confusing Tom Friedman with Milton Friedman? If so, you bet. Milton F. is one of the most recognized economists in the US.

[Matariki]

15. Screaming in all caps about something completely different than what was posted?

weird.

[uponit7771]

19. This post is credible seeing Sanders camp has claimed a number for false endorsements

[Lucinda]

16. Thank you! KNR

[JackRiddler]

17. "Left leaning"

Austen Goolsbee!

I'm dying to hear what the fiery leftist Larry Summers had to say.

[uponit7771]

18. Corporatist, Establishment, sell out, poopy head NYT!!!! and stuff

[PotatoChip]

24. This came out in the MSM over two weeks ago.

Here is a rebuttal published in HuffPo by:

David Himmelstein
Professor of Public Health at CUNY and Lecturer in Medicine at Harvard Medical School

Steffie Woolhandler
Professor in the CUNY School of Public Health at Hunter College; Lecturer in Medicine, Harvard Medical School

On Kenneth Thorpe's Analysis of Senator Sanders' Single-Payer Reform Plan

01/29/2016 01:23 pm ET | Updated Jan 29, 2016

Professor Kenneth Thorpe recently issued an analysis of Senator Bernie Sanders' single-payer national health insurance proposal. Thorpe, an Emory University professor who served in the Clinton administration, claims the single-payer plan would break the bank.

Thorpe's analysis rests on several incorrect, and occasionally outlandish, assumptions. Moreover, it is at odds with analyses of the costs of single-payer programs that he produced in the past, which projected large savings from such reform (see this study, for example, or this one).

We outline below the incorrect assumptions behind Thorpe's current analysis:

1. He incorrectly assumes administrative savings of only 4.7 percent of expenditures, based on projections of administrative savings under Vermont's proposed reform.

More here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-himmelstein/kenneth-thorpe-bernie-sanders-single-payer_b_9113192.html

[gollygee]

26. Am I the only person

Who is glad to have a candidate who says what he thinks the country should look like, even if he might not be able to get all the way there before he's out of office? If he reaches for that and only gets part way there, we're headed in the right direction and he might get us farther along the road than we'd otherwise get. Democrats don't usually do this - it's more of a Republican thing. And it's worked for them. They say they'll make abortion illegal. They can't actually make abortion illegal, but that's their ideal end point. Then they do what they can to reach that end point. It's very effective. I love the idea of the Democratic Party pushing so hard for things, like taking that same method and using it for good rather than evil.

[Cali_Democrat]

27. I'm in agreement that we should push hard....however,

we should be fact-based.

If you read the article and look at the figures put forward by Bernie's campaign, it's clear that he's underestimating the cost of these proposals. I think he's doing it because if the true costs were revealed, he thinks Americans wouldn't support the proposals.

I want us to push hard, but we need to make sure that that were are fact-based. If Bernie's proposals do increase the size of the federal goverment by 40% to 50%, we need that disclosed by his campaign.