Last night a certain young socialist was on CNN with Chris Cuomo defending the exorbitant cost of her Medicare for All program. And it was amazing.
Roll the tapes (it’s cued up):
So how does she sell it?
First she claims that the recent Mercatus study was biased because of the Kochs and that Medicare for All is much cheaper than the current program we have. Um, Thanks Obama?
First of all, the Mercatus study itself wasn’t funded by the Kochs. But also remember that we told you that Mercatus wasn’t the only study that came up with these extreme costs:
The Mercatus analysis estimated the 10-year cost of “Medicare for all” from 2022 to 2031, after an initial phase-in. Its findings are similar to those of several independent studies of Sanders’ 2016 plan. Those studies found increases in federal spending over 10 years that ranged from $24.7 trillion to $34.7 trillion.
Kenneth Thorpe, a health policy professor at Emory University in Atlanta, authored one of those studies and says the Mercatus analysis reinforces them.
“It’s showing that if you are going to go in this direction, it’s going to cost the federal government $2.5 trillion to $3 trillion a year in terms of spending,” said Thorpe. “Even though people don’t pay premiums, the tax increases are going to be enormous. There are going to be a lot of people who’ll pay more in taxes than they save on premiums.” Thorpe was a senior health policy adviser in the Clinton administration.
Thorpe’s study was probably funded by the Kochs too!!!
By the way, you should note that’s just 32 trillion or so in just the first ten years. It just increases from there to costs that would bankrupt planet earth. But hey, fair share and carbon taxes will cover it!
She also claims that the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare because the monthly premiums were a tax. NOT TRUE! Roberts ruled that the penalty assessed by the IRS for those that didn’t purchase health insurance was a tax, not the monthly premiums. Does this girl from the Bronx pay attention to anything?
But the craziest thing she said in defense of her Medicare for All program is that what makes Obamacare so ‘expensive’ is the cost of people dying who can’t afford it!
So, we’re paying for this system. We — Americans have the sticker shock of healthcare as it is, and what we’re also not talking about is, why aren’t we incorporating the cost of all the funeral expenses of those who died because they can’t afford access to healthcare? That is part of the cost of our system.
Um…thanks again Obama!
As Ed Morrissey points out this morning, everybody dies! Everyone has funeral expenses at some point or another. Funeral costs aren’t factored into studies like this because they’re not avoidable costs.
But what’s the flip side? Is she trying to tell us that under her system people won’t die, or they won’t die because they don’t have access to healthcare? Tell that to the people at the VA. Or to the people in both Canada and the UK who’ve died while waiting in line for their government funded healthcare. What about those funeral costs?
I’m all for ditching the current Obamacare system we have because it is extremely expensive. My monthly payments keep skyrocketing every year. But if the girl from the Bronx got her way, it would make the cost of Obamacare look like pennies. And that’s saying something.