Medicare For All IS Financially Feasible - Contrary to the Neoliberal Pundits' Codswallop

The CNN star pundit Jake Tapper is normally a steady and sane voice amidst the current insanity and turmoil affecting the country thanks to Brand Trump.  But he stumbled badly recently in attempting to hold the claims of Sen. Bernie Sanders and  Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez   to scrutiny, warning that the Democratic Socialist Duo  were "not entitled to their own facts" i.e. in respect of their claims concerning the cost efficiency of Medicare for All.  But could it be that Jake is the one being dishonest here, and those he seeks to castigate in his Neoliberal myopia are correct? 


The point to be made here is that it matters what source or sources one selects in challenging the claims of others.  Sometimes this is like shooting fish in a barrel because the source is a fraud through and through. Hence those citing it are also frauds or woefully ignorant of the contaminated,  fake nature of  what they're citing. A case in point is the Warren 'Whitewash' Commission's 'Warren Report' -  so replete with lies, omissions, outright fraudulent exhibits, etc. that anyone who cites it for support has already lost his or her case.  

The financial issues to do with Medicare for all are much less obvious because they depend not only on the integrity of sources but assumptions made, as well as financial projections.  I already posted (June 12, last year) on Bloomberg columnist Megan McCardle's financial objections as well as giving my responses to them. For example, in terms of her arguments for "asymmetric insurance" for a given risk pool managed by health insurance, I wrote:   

I argue, as does David Jessop, that this kind of economic concept has no place in health care delivery because people are not cars, homes, or fancy jewels. Look, if populations are continually growing that logically  means sick conditions and diseases must grow with them-  whether cancers, Alzheimer's, kidney disease or whatever. Even the healthiest person following a rigorous diet  can get cancer or be injured in an auto accident. Hence, the notion of "asymmetric insurance" for a risk pool managed by a health insurer is ludicrous. There can be no such thing because one will know from the get go that every manner of sickness and disability can only expand, especially for older age groups.


What Jake Tapper pulled on his CNN segment was arguably a lot worse.  In the Tapper case, he honed in on Sen. Sanders' and Alexandra Ocasio- Cortez' claim that one study from the Mercatus Center (at George Mason University - a libertarian strong hold)  showed that a universal health care plan would actually save money over a ten year period. 

“Is that true?” Tapper asked incredulously. “Did a study funded by the Koch brothers indicate that Medicare for All would actually save the U.S. government trillions of dollars? No, it’s not true, at least not according to the author of the study.”

After carefully noting an Associated Press investigation that exposed the Koch brothers’ control over the hiring and firing of educators at George Mason University, Tapper then proceeded to quote at length from the Mercatus Center’s Charles Blahous, who refuted Sanders’ assertion that the proposed legislation would lower the projected cost of all health care expenditures by $2 trillion. From the segment:

It is likely that the actual cost of [Medicare for all] 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 [Medicare for all] will be reimbursed at rates more than 40 percent lower than those currently paid by private health insurance.

This is where it gets interesting because Blahous' contentions and arguments also appeared in the WSJ ('Even Doubling Taxes Wouldn't Pay For Medicare For All'. Aug, 2nd), wherein he claimed that over ten years the bill would rise to $32.6 TRILLION if the U.S. adopted Medicare for All. Which is pure poppycock, as well as myopic. As one medical specialist (John Perryman) wrote in a response letter to the WSJ (last Friday, the 17th):

.  "The U.S. pays more for health care, whether measured on a per capita basis or as a proportion of GDP than every other nation on Earth.   What Blahous fails to mention is that vast costs are already happening and our worsened by the structure of our health care system. Single payer is an economically viable alternative."

In effect, if you run the numbers for the money shelled out for private insurance by all Americans over the next ten years, including premium increases, drug increases, costs increasing due to inflation and others (co-pays, out of pocket outlays for high deductible plans), it easily surpasses $32.6 trillion and is probably closer to $40 trillion if ER visits by the uninsured are factored in - which costs have to be paid by taxpayers.

Blahous' wild claims  -  based in part on the false assumption of a 40 % cut to provider reimbursements-  were also trounced in a separate letter (same date, issue)  by a Univ. Of Michigan medical professor  who wrote:  "A 25 % federal VAT plus a 3 %  increase in the top federal tax rate (from 37 % to 30%) would be adequate to fund Medicare for All even under Mr. Blahous' assumptions."

Blahous and Tapper were also exposed as not completely truthful in a   pair of essays published in the journal Jacobin.   In effect, what the Mercatus study actually indicated is that Medicare provider rates would come in at 40 percent below private insurance rates. Not totally surprising given  Medicare provider reimbursements  are not affected to the 40 percent level - contrary to Blahous' blather, i.e. as exposed in the Jacobin essays . 

 As  Matt Bruenig writes: 

“This is because only 56 percent of Americans have private insurance.  So, while private insurance patients would see their payments reduced by 40 percent, Medicare patients would not see their payments reduced at all, and Medicaid and uninsured patients would actually see their payments increase.”

Tapper's obsession - typically Neoliberal  - is also on the savings for government ($2 trillion) but in fact that's irrelevant as it is the savings for We the people - as Sanders and Ocasio -Cortex had belabored.  Also not surprising is that Tapper echoes the Neoliberal position of The Washington Post which Bruenig points out has regurgitated the untruths in  a separate fact-check  of Ocasio -Cortex, as well as a video segment accompanying an editorial entitled  “The cosmically huge ‘if’ of Medicare for all."   Interestingly, the editors have appeared to have removed the video - maybe conscious of exposure of their Neoliberal lies, after the appearance of the Jacobin piece.

This led Bruenig to write:

"In some ways, the undead nature of this falsehood is a perfect microcosm of the problems our society faces in dealing with fake news.  Once a false report is out there, it is devilishly difficult to undo the damage it has caused because, even if it is corrected, few people ever recognize the correction and so many people wind up repeating the false report.”

The takeaway here is that any claims you see or hear regarding how Medicare for All is "too costly" or "financially impractical" must be taken with a grain of salt.  Look especially at the sources cited and don't be fooled by any superficial institute's name cachet. 

Watch Jake Tapper’s CNN segment here.

Read Matt Bruenig’s articles here and here.

Bloomberg's McArdle Makes Perfect Case To Terminate Electoral College

"In whatever spider hole in hell they've placed bin Laden, along with all the other petty tyrants of history, all of them must now be laughing. For in the days following 9/11 we grew to despise a thug terrorist who wished to destroy what it meant to be an American.

Now, in the days after Inauguration Day, 2017, we find ourselves led by a thug president bent on finishing the job."  - Chuck Plunkett, Editor of The Denver Post, Feb. 5, p. 1D

"I don’t know the best response for Americans to make to this chaos, but I do know that no action is the worst response. Americans, make some act of resistance!" - Letter writer Elizabeth Goebel, in Denver Post, Feb. 5, p. 2 D

The Electoral College had one chance, and one  only, to prove once and for all it wasn't an archaic, useless anachronism and it blew it. That chance occurred in December last year when it had the ability to specifically prevent a totally unqualified nitwit and looneytune from occupying the highest office in the land. And it fucked it up big time, let's not mince words.

Let's remind ourselves of what we already knew about Trump two months ago, in the words of blogger William Rivers Pitt:

"A man with the temperament of an earthquake, utterly devoid of self-control, with no one around him apparently capable of reining him in, a man who admittedly lives for revenge and retribution, who is completely incapable of absorbing criticism without having a very public meltdown, who knows little of the world, and who thinks nothing of throwing people who commit minor acts of dissent in prison … this man is about to be invested with astonishing legal powers."

Alexander Hamilton himself-  in Federalist #68 -  saw the need to stop such an autocratic demagogue from becoming President,  so why not an ordinary citizen elector? Especially when, as Kathleen Parker noted in a column days before the Electoral College met:

"Without consulting advisers or “sleeping on it,” for which he is not known, Trump can authorize a nuke upon the slightest provocation — or none. All previous presidents have had the same authority, of course, but all have also been experienced statesmen, nary a reality-show celebrity (nor snake-oil salesman) among them."

Hamilton for his own part was blunt and to the point and his words in The Federalist  #68  bear directly on Trump's entanglements with foreign businesses and diplomats:

"Nothing is more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to a cabal, intrigue or corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.

How could they better gratify this than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union?"

Hamilton was particularly emphatic when he wrote:

"the office of President shall never fall to the lot of any man who is not to an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications"

"Shall never fall to any man who is not to an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications". The words could not be any clearer! What has also been manifested since Trump's inauguration is that he not only lacks the requisite qualifications but poses a mortal danger to the Republic. This is something that my Revolutionary War ancestor Conrad Brumbaugh would see in a heartbeat, and why he'd also agree Trump needs to be removed from the seat of power. (See my previous post).

Thus, the Electoral College failed in the one major job with which it was charged and allowed an unqualified, unstable nincompoop to become President. It became instead merely a rubber stamp for the electoral vote count and showed that because it couldn't fulfill it's prime purpose it needs to be retired to the dumpster of history.

Enter now Bloomberg News' writer Megan McArdle ('Democrats Rise Is Far From Inevitable', Denver Post, Jan. 27,  p. 1D) who actually claimed "the left's demonstrations were more impressive than its voter turnout".  Clearly missing the memo that the Dems actually turned out 2.9 million MORE voters than Trump for this past election, in favor of Hillary Clinton.  Hence, the shabby voter turnout claim is another alternative fact. But it plays into McArdle's narrative - and other pundits - that we need to preserve this anachronism. No, we do not.

This is reinforced later when she writes:

"The Democratic Coalition has self-gerrymandered into a small number of places where it can turn out an impressive number of feet on the ground but not enough votes to win the House....or the Electoral College".

But in fact it is the peculiar anti-democratic nature of the Electoral College (as well as outlandish Republican gerrymandering, to hold onto House seats) that has led to an aberration where the popular vote winner loses an election.  (As Al Gore did in the 2000 election). An aberration, by the way, present in no other Western democracy - where the popular vote is the decisive marker for winning an election.  Hence, the U.S. system is antiquated and diluted by comparison to the proper election systems of the UK, Germany, France etc. We are out of synch with those election systems, in other words, and now ours has been shown to invite demagoguery.

The only saving grace or reason for preserving it was basically snuffed out when the electors met on December 19th and punted, allowing a mentally unstable populist poltroon to ascend to power. This is exactly what the Founders feared! With that misfire, the Electoral College's only utility vanished and it effectively signed its own epitaph, though most of the nation's pundits still haven't figured that out.

The only reason to preserve an anachronism like the Electoral College was for it to act as the final fail safe to an unwise electorate committing the crime of "mischief of faction"  noted by James Madison in The Federalist #10. As Madison described it:

"Mischief of faction is when citizens - whether amounting to a minority or majority of the whole - are united and actuated by a common impulse of passion to cast their votes adverse to the rights of other citizens or the permanent and aggregate interests of the community". 

This is exactly what the Trump voters did, motivated by inflamed passions and moral recklessness via Trump's often violent rallies to give a middle finger to the rest of the country - thereby militating against the majority's interests.   While most citizens' fears were speculative before Trump's inauguration, the last two weeks have shown that all were justified in spades. He has pissed on every value of the majority of voters, as well as on the Constitution with his Muslim Ban - which some Trumpies still fail to grasp by definition. They ridicule the rest of us for asserting it's a real ban-because the largest Muslim nations, e.g. Indonesia, had been excluded.  Missing the point that the ban was not about banning ALL Muslim nations but a subjectively targeted set suspected of having terrorists. In fact it targeted seven predominantly Muslim nations for punishment when none of their citizens have been guilty of any terror acts. (The Saudis were excluded from the ban, but of course, they were A-ok because The Donald has business interests there).

Also exposing the ban for the fascist imperative it is, is the 2015 study that showed "since 9/11 white, right wing terrorists have killed almost twice as many Americans in homegrown attacks than radical Islamists have..."  But, of course, this diverges from the Trumpie narrative that all the bad guys are Muslim.  But issues like this are what cause me to believe the 9th Circuit Appeals Court will find for the opponents of the specious Muslim ban concocted by Steve Bannon.

Trump went even further in pursuing the mischief of faction mandate by appointing a White nationalist to his National Security Council, as well as seven- odd "alligators" to fill the "swamp" he promised to drain. In other words, their job will be to destroy the agencies they've been hired to lead. And from the last email I've received from the Sierra Club,  e.g.

Florida GOP Rep. Matt Gaetz just introduced a bill to ENTIRELY DISMANTLE the agency responsible for defending air, water, and human health from pollution and climate change.

that starts with the EPA.

So yes, the Electoral College and its useless, spineless electors fucked us all to a far thee well. They showed the Electoral College deserves to be disbanded and left to rot in the annals of history where it belongs.  In the process they also showed McArdle's arguments are specious on their face.

McArdle is correct that large swaths of the country are "turning redder"  but  all that means in the light of recent events, is there is more potential for mischief of faction in the future - unless the Electoral College (now a mere rubber stamp)  is abolished. It certainly doesn't mean the Democrats are becoming obsolete - given they took the popular vote by such a huge margin. (Which has prompted the unhinged Trump to protest it and actually mount a phony investigation, so bruised is his ego.)  What it means is we are allowing an anachronistic appendage to pervert democracy and the voice of the majority of voters in favor of an unelected clique who can't even fulfill their basic mandate: to protect the nation from a phony populist and demagogue. 

The Founders would be turning over in their graves now, as well as my ancestor, Conrad - who fought in the Pennsylvania Regiment against the Redcoats to prevent this very situation from happening.

See also:

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/henry-giroux/71087/combating-trumps-neo-fascism-and-the-ghost-of-1984
 

The Only Dem "Tax Fake Out" Is From Hillary

Megan McArdle of Bloomberg News claimed in a recent article ('The Democrats' Tax Fake Out', D. Post, Jan. 10),  that both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders want to jump start new programs (worker training, free college, preschool care etc.) but "are probably not going to be able to pay for it with the piddly sums from raising higher taxes on the rich".  She goes on to claim:

"Yet both of them seem wedded to the idea that taxes should not rise significantly for anyone who makes less than $250,000 a year"

Of course, this has since been skewered as Bernie made it clear in a town hall meeting last night (and based on his tax plan released over a week ago) that the middle class WILL have to pay more in taxes, if they expect to reap the enhanced benefits he has proposed.  It is actually Hillary who's vowed middle class taxes won't go up, and even proposed tax cuts. But then she is also the Dem candidate who has indicated we can't afford to expand Social Security or offer free college to deserving kids. After all, you only get what you pay for...or don't!

McCardle cites Bryce Covert of Think Progress "who does a good job of making the case that Democratic priorities can't be funded without broader based taxes.".

McCardle then begs the question - based on Covert's lack of explanation - of why the Democrats are "avoiding this obvious arithmetic". But again, it's Hillary doing so, not Sen. Sanders. And the only reason to dodge higher taxes for the middle class is the same as it was after Obama got elected and the Bush tax cuts finally faced expiration: lower taxes could be used as political opportunism. But Hillary, like Obama, wouldn't inform voters it would mean cuts to their favorite program later. Hence, Obama's 2010-11 advocacy of Social Security cuts (via the chained CPI) and his "Debt Commission". Bait and switch anyone?

But this isn't some new revelation. As early as 2009-10, The Financial Times' Clive Crook warned that continuing the Bush tax cuts would be a serious error, and undermine Democratic -backed social programs.  He showed using carefully documented math - from stats parsed from the Government Accounting Office- that keeping the Bush tax cuts in place (which the Dems did for two years) would have serious repercussions. He was right, and we then saw the chained CPI appear as well as cuts to the SNAP (food stamps) program over two successive years.

I argued in several posts that Americans needed to stop falling for this horse shit and accept higher taxes like Europeans do,especially  if they wished to protect social insurance and other domestic benefits programs.

Last night,  in a Town Hall meeting response to a blunt question from CNN's Chris Cuomo -  on  wanting "big government back" -  Bernie correctly and deftly dodged the acceptance of the loaded language and instead vowed he'd protect the American middle class from further inequality. He also explained how this might translate - in the case of his single payer health program  - into maybe $5,000 a year higher taxes. But before the audience had a collective heart attack he reminded them this would be in place of paying higher private health care insurance premiums of say $10,000 - as many families are doing in exchanges and health coops under the ACA. (Or if they don't have the benefit of a federal subsidy under the ACA and hence have the option of only higher deductible plans).

So pick your damned poison. DO you want $5k higher taxes or $10k yearly premiums (likely to increase each year, as they are doing now - according to the WSJ - by an estimated 9.4%). Sanders also did the math for Cuomo and the audience noting the arithmetic results in a $5k savings.

Another woman asked about the high drug prescription costs and again, Bernie - as he did in Dem debate 2 - vowed to rein in the Big PhRmA price gougers.  His plan, again, is overhauling the entire PhRmA price gouging constellation and forcing them to simplify as well as rationalize drug prices. There is also no reason U.S. seniors have to pay so much more than those in other nations. Why should our seniors and other citizens foot the bill for others around the world? Well, because we allow it to happen!

Thus, the ACA was forged by crafting an $80b deal with PhRmA to disallow any import of cheaper drugs from Canada, as well as prohibiting Medicare from bargaining for lower drug prices like the VA. All of this would change under a Bernie Sanders' administration. The savings to Medicare alone, just to allow drug price bargaining like the VA - would save $200b over ten years.

Sanders' simplified drug plan, such as for Medicare, would also obviate the need for so many seniors to do twenty five hours of research each year to ensure they're not getting screwed over by keeping their current drug plan under Part D. (Which program originated under the Bushies' 'Medicare Modernization Act' - one of the biggest corporate giveaways ever.). In many cases while the senior finds the monthly premiums do go down, the tiers of the drugs he needs are changed so he still ends up paying more. Only careful research, consuming many hours of time, enables him to see another Part D plan may be better so he signs on - but then they may change tiers for their own drugs next time!

Bernie's solution would dispense with this smoke and mirrors BS as well as eliminate the notorious 'donut hole' once and for all.  The $64 question is whether Americans are grown up enough to accept higher taxes to solve these issues, or would they rather keep lower taxes - as well as sniff for tax cuts - but face cuts to their social programs later.

Time will tell, and the first look will be after the Iowa caucuses next week.