Why Won’t The Mainstream Media Tell The Truth About ‘Medicare For All’?

| Educate!

Above Photo: CNN correspondent Jake Tapper (Twitter screen grab)

At the end of a segment posted Friday in conjunction with factcheck.org, CNN’s Jake Tapper issues a playful warning to the country’s politicians: “You’re perfectly entitled to your own opinions,” he quips, “not to your own facts.”

It’s a piece of advice the correspondent would be wise to heed himself. As a pair of essays published in Jacobin this week demonstrate, his comprehensive fact-check of Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s claims about the cost-efficiency of “Medicare for all” is misleading at best and willfully dishonest at worst.

The subject of Tapper’s report is a study from the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, a libertarian think tank underwritten by the Koch brothers. More specifically, he focuses on Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez’s contention that the study’s findings indicate universal health care would save money over a 10-year period.

“Is that true?” Tapper asks 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 proceeds to quote at length from the Mercatus Center’s Charles Blahous, who refutes 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.

Put simply, this is false. What the Mercatus study actually indicates is that Medicare provider rates would come in 40 percent below private insurance rates, but the cuts in reimbursement would be considerably lower than the number provided by Blahous.

“This is because only 56 percent of Americans have private insurance,” writes Matt Bruenig in Jacobin. “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.”

The $2 trillion in savings are not for the U.S. government, as Tapper erroneously suggests Sanders is arguing, but the American people overall.

Tapper’s segment appears to echo The Washington Post, which Bruenig notes has repeated such untruths in a separate fact-check of Ocasio-Cortez and a video segment accompanying an editorial titled “The cosmically huge ‘if’ of Medicare for all.” (Editor’s note: This video appears to have been removed subsequent to the publication of the Jacobin piece.) Incredibly, The Washington Post’s own Glen Kessler has acknowledged the 40 percent claim as false, yet both articles have gone uncorrected.

“In some ways, the undead nature of this falsehood is a perfect microcosm of the problems our society faces in dealing with fake news,” continues Bruenig. “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.”

Watch Jake Tapper’s segment here.

Read Matt Bruenig’s articles here and here.

  • PeterPaget

    It would be good if this comment by Sugarman would be expressed more clearly. I am clearly confused by it. I understand he is saying someone is saying that the People will get a saving of $2 billion ove 10 years with medicare for all and that Sanders is right on that point, but the rest is a mishmash of statements and facts(?) kind of like a chart showing lines connecting points, but you cannot tell where the lines start and/or stop.

  • kevinzeese

    It is a savings of 2 TRILLION over ten years, not billions based on the Koch-funded study. And, their study is based on very conservative numbers chosen by Koch researchers trying to please their donors who oppose single payer.

    There is an article in the Nation (link below), by some of the top healthcare researchers in the country that put the savings at much higher levels. They point out the Koch-funded study estimated only $70 billion in annual administrative savings when it fact single payer saves $500 billion annually in administrative savings. They estimate only $61 billion in savings in prescription drug costs when in fact those savings would be $150 billion annually. The Koch-researchers also leave out state and local government savings over ten years of nearly $3.6 trillion on employee benefits, $724 billion spent by the federal government for federal employee health benefits and $5.3 trillion spent over ten year on Medicaid and other health programs, all that funding would be part of Medicare for all.

    On top of these government savings, employers would save $10 trillion they would otherwise pay for premiums (some of this will be collected as payroll taxes). And, Medicare for All would relieve households of the $7.7 trillion they’d pay for premiums and $6.3 trillion in out-of-pocket costs under the current system.

    And, while saving all these trillions of dollars, every person in the United States would have access to high quality healthcare. The Koch-funded study tried to make a case against single payer but actually made the case for National Improved Medicare for All.


  • PeterPaget

    Now let us hope hay can be made politically on these facts. Maybe the Koch organization is not so bad. Hahaha

  • Oblique

    I had listen to a lot of what the koch organization preached. I worked at a place that was owned by them. They had their propaganda everywhere and anywhere. Any promotion required online classes through their leadership school. Some of the stuff does make sense while much of it does not. You would take online test and if you passed you could get promoted if not then you were to receive coaching.

    They helped me find out that I was a libertarian Socialist at 19. That I abhorred authority and the establishment of a state but also liked a bunch of stuff they did not at all! Needless to say I never got that promotion and I left 6 months later.

    I like to tell those who it pisses off that I found socialism not in college because I never went but found it while working for the Koch bros.!