Quote (fender @ Aug 26 2018 08:17pm)
lying about what i said about the study does not maky MY statement a lie, i don't think you understand how that works. a baseless claim is not a fact, it's just that. liar.
Lying?
I directly quoted your statement:
"the study is incredibly biased (against medicare for all ofc) and based on the worst assumptions they could have made concerning sanders' proposal"
Rather than making the worst assumptions, its calculations that allegedly showed it would be cheaper were wildly overoptimistic by presupposing that costs would in fact be drastically cut as Sanders intends.
Quote
"These estimates are conservative because they assume the legislation achieves its sponsors’ goals of dramatically reducing payments to health providers, in addition to substantially reducing drug prices and administrative costs."
"M4A would markedly increase the demand for healthcare services while simultaneously cutting payments to providers by more than 40 percent, reducing payments to levels that are lower on average than providers’ current costs of providing care. It cannot be known how much providers will react to these losses by reducing the availability of existing health services, the quality of such services, or both."
Quote
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
-The studyQuote
The Mercatus report’s author took issue with Sanders’ focus on that figure.
Charles Blahous said that to come up with that estimate, Mercatus used a relatively generous assumption about how well Sanders’ plan will end up controlling health care costs. It assumes that provider payment will be reduced to Medicare levels, that negotiation with prescription drugmakers will generate significant savings, and that administrative costs will be cut from 13 to 6 percent.
However, in an alternative scenario in which cost-control works less effectively (see Table 4) Mercatus found that over the same 10-year period, national health expenditures would actually increase by $3.252 trillion compared to current law.
So while the number Sanders chose really does appear in the report, he’s cherry-picked the more flattering of two estimates.
Sanders’ bill "indicates that health providers would be paid at Medicare’s payment rates, which are about 40 percent lower than those paid by private insurance," Blahous said. "Obviously, immediately cutting payments to health care providers by roughly 40 percent would lower national health spending."
But would cuts that large actually occur (and without other negative consequences, such as mass retirements of doctors unwilling to accept lower fees)? This is where independent experts express caution.
Sustained cuts as deep as those projected in the Mercatus model Sanders pointed to are "not likely feasible,"said John Holahan, a fellow in the health policy center at the Urban Institute. His Urban Institute colleague, Linda Blumberg, agreed, saying it’s a "pretty heroic assumption to say that you can dial payment rates down to those levels system-wide politically."
In addition, even if the switch to Medicare for All does end up cutting the total amount of money spent on health care in the United States, the legislation places more of those costs on the federal budget. In an era of rising debt and an aging Baby Boom generation, that could be a problem.
-politifact
Stating these wildly optimistic and generous figures are 'incredibly biased' and "based on the worst assumptions" against m4a is a clear 'pants on fire' lie.
This post was edited by cambovenzi on Aug 26 2018 06:32pm
Guests cannot view or vote in polls. Please register or login.