Sanders mixes up the numbers on Medicare-for-all Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) snapped back at former vice president Joe Biden during last week's Democratic presidential debate with some numbers: "Joe said that Medicare-for-all would cost over $30 trillion. That's right, Joe. Status quo over 10 years will be $50 trillion." Given Sanders's phrasing, we were left wondering: Would the country save $20 trillion by switching to a Medicare-for-all system? But before we go any further, we should note that the Sanders campaign declined to explain the comparison he was making. Sanders picked up Three Pinocchios. The $30 trillion Medicare-for-all number is actually the low-end estimate from a 2018 study by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. The $50 trillion figure comes from an estimate of national health expenditures produced by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. That study is for years 2018 to 2027, while the Mercatus Center study is for years 2022 to 2031. So, they aren't considering the same time frame. If we use the same time frame (2022-2031) and look at total expenditures, the "status quo" figure would be $59.7 trillion, while the Medicare-for-all cost, using the Mercatus methodology, jumps to $57.6 trillion to $63.8 trillion over 10 years. Keep in mind that we are talking about total costs, which includes the cost of moving from private insurance to Medicare-for-all, existing government health care spending and other fixed costs. Four of the five key studies on the impact of the Sanders plan estimate that national health expenditures will rise over 10 years. The author of the fifth study predicts a decline but said Sanders exaggerated. Even when using a best-case-scenario estimate, health care expenditures under both systems are comparable, he said.  Enjoy this newsletter? Forward it to someone else who'd like it! If this e-mail was forwarded to you, sign up here. Hear something fact-checkable? Send it here, we'll check it out. Was candidate Trump warned about Russia? At a House hearing this week with President Trump's erstwhile campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, several Republicans were outraged that the FBI failed to brief the Trump campaign about the threat of Russian election interference in 2016. "Of course they didn't give you a defensive briefing during the campaign ... because they were trying to set him up," Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) said to Lewandowski. "They [Russia] specifically targeted the Scottish independence vote, the Brexit vote and Angela Merkel," Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.) said. "Despite knowledge of these kinds of election threats, the Obama administration sat idly by — instead of warning the Trump campaign." Intelligence briefings are classified and we can't say for sure what warnings Trump did or didn't get from the FBI in 2016, so we withheld Pinocchios. But there's an ample public record to be pieced together on this issue, and it strongly suggests that the FBI did in fact brief Trump about the threat of Russian election interference before the election. Trump got a defensive briefing in August 2016 that covered threats from foreign intelligence entities, according to the FBI. If Russia wasn't covered, what was the point of the exercise? At the time, Russia was top of mind for U.S. officials monitoring cyberthreats, while multiple reports had linked Russia to a massive hack of the Democratic National Committee. Former FBI director James Comey has said the presidential nominees' 2016 briefings covered "the threat coming from different nations" and "the major adversaries of the United States." CNN reported that a memo describing these briefings includes Russia, adding that Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and aides to other lawmakers got a look at it. Put it all together, and this is as convincing as the evidence gets without official confirmation.  We're always looking for fact-check suggestions. You can also reach us via email, Twitter (@GlennKesslerWP, @mmkelly22, @rizzoTK or use #FactCheckThis), or Facebook (Fact Checker). Read about our rating scale here, and sign up for the newsletter here. Scroll down for this week's Pinocchio roundup. | 
Email
No comments:
Post a Comment