In Bernie Land, $42 Trillion in Revenue Pays for $97 Trillion in Spending

[beastie boy]

Under new pressure, Sanders released a document claiming to show how he pays for everything. It doesn’t come close.

After his train wreck 60 Minutes appearance when he couldn’t answer basic questions from Anderson Cooper about paying for some of his proposals, Sen. Bernie Sanders returned the next night while appearing on CNN and released a fact sheet claiming he can pay for all his new spending proposals. But, alas, conventional economic and budget analysis reveal that this claim is not remotely credible.

First, it is worth noting that Sanders’ spending promises total as much as $97.5 trillion over the decade. Sanders concedes that his Medicare For All plan would increase federal spending by “somewhere between $30 and $40 trillion over a 10-year period.” He has promised to spend $16.3 trillion on his climate plan. And his proposal to guarantee all Americans a full-time government job paying $15 an hour, with full benefits, is estimated to cost $30.1 trillion. The final $11.1 trillion includes $2.5 trillion on housing, $1.8 trillion to expand Social Security, $1.6 trillion on paid family leave, $1 trillion on infrastructure, $3 trillion to forgive all student loans and guarantee free public-college tuition, $800 billion on general K-12 education spending, and an additional $400 billion on higher public school teacher salaries.

Many of these spending estimates come directly from the Sanders campaign.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/in-bernie-land-dollar42-trillion-in-revenue-pays-for-dollar97-trillion-in-spending?ref=home

[Hestia]

1. Boy, TPTB really don't want to lose their pittance of a tax raise to pay for their

citizenship just like we do. Boo Hoo...

[George II]

2. The current Federal budget is between $4-5 trillion. $30 to $40 trillion over ten years....

....will almost DOUBLE the budget just for "medicare for all". They're already spending about at trillion per year more than they're taking in, so they'll have to bring in $3-4 trillion just to stay even.

From where is it going to come?

[JudyM]

3. In Biden Land, he said yesterday he'll appoint the first African American woman to the US Senate.

Not the onion.

And not a speech/stuttering issue.

I like Joe on a personal level, he seems like a really nice guy, and this is sad. But are we not seeing this growing pattern of errors as an issue?

MSM isn’t covering this even though it was caught on film by the local SC news station. It sure is posted on RW news sites, though! We are blinded, apparently, by a fantasy desire to support Joe.

[dware]

5. At least he's not making spending promises that he can't possibly keep. nt.

[AGeddy]

9. He meant to say "US Supreme Court" and said "Senate" instead.

Molehill.

[JudyM]

30. It's not a one-off. Remember the same thing in the debate?

[zackymilly]

51. I'll take Biden gaffes over a socialist title any day. n/t

[DanTex]

4. LOL. These Bernie-bashing articles keep getting more absurd.

[dware]

6. So lets see your facts refuting this.

[DanTex]

8. This guy works at a right-wing think tank and writes for National Review, and uses the

kind of number-fudging that one would expect from that. Bernie's website has estimates of costs and revenues, and peer reviewed research such as the Lancet study, as opposed to opinion pieces from right-wing think tankers, back up his policies.

I have no idea when right-wingers who write for National Review became go-to sources here. It's strange.

[dware]

10. I've seen Bernie's "facts"

and they don't add up at all.

But I'm not worried, Bernie is starting to lose steam and he won't be the Democratic nominee, which he shouldn't be in the first place, he's not even a Democrat, he's just using the Party for his ambitions, while at the same time, bashing Democrats.

[gredinger]

14. Where's your research?

I'd like to see your math where it doesn't add up. Where's your peer reviewed research?

What doesn't add up is democrats attacking medicare.

[dware]

19. There are also peer reviewed studies that says Bernie's "facts"

don't add up.

BTW, welcome to DU, while it lasts.

[gredinger]

21. Where?

Post it.

[dware]

25. I'm not talking about just M4A,

I'm talking about his whole proposal.

First, it is worth noting that Sanders’ spending promises total as much as $97.5 trillion over the decade. Sanders concedes that his Medicare For All plan would increase federal spending by “somewhere between $30 and $40 trillion over a 10-year period.” He has promised to spend $16.3 trillion on his climate plan. And his proposal to guarantee all Americans a full-time government job paying $15 an hour, with full benefits, is estimated to cost $30.1 trillion. The final $11.1 trillion includes $2.5 trillion on housing, $1.8 trillion to expand Social Security, $1.6 trillion on paid family leave, $1 trillion on infrastructure, $3 trillion to forgive all student loans and guarantee free public-college tuition, $800 billion on general K-12 education spending, and an additional $400 billion on higher public school teacher salaries

Where does the money come from?

But this is a moot point, he's not going to win the nomination.

[gredinger]

26. Research now.

So, you're shifting the goal posts.

First it's "this plan costs to much", then you shift to "all these plans cost to much".

Show me a single empirical study in which M4A costs more money than our current system. You won't be able to find a single study.

Also, FYI, without investment in our climate future, the liability from climate change will be 70 trillion dollars by the end of the century.

Stop moving the goal posts, start digging into actual research instead of rebroadcasting talking points.

[dware]

27. Nope, my whole point is that Bernie is promising things he can't

possibly deliver, and if he is the nominee, then prepare for another 4 years of the Mango Menace and the likelihood of a R controlled House and no chance of retaking the Senate.

[lapucelle]

36. The Lancet article is an opinion piece.

The authors acknowledge that the projected "savings" are speculative and contingent on both the repeal of current legislation and the passage of multiple pieces of new legislation. The first author has a competing interest as an advisor to BS.

The appendix with the calculations passed peer review because the math works, but the math works if and only if the "anticipated savings" based on a particular set of of highly speculative conditions actually materialize.

Expenditure
Our projections of the national health expenditure following enactment of the MAA take into account expansion of coverage to the 38 million Americans who are currently uninsured,​3–5​ as well as increased healthcare utilization for the 41 million who are under insured.​ We also incorporate anticipated savings, including those related to overhead, provider fees and pharmaceutical costs.

Contributors
APG (first author) conceived of the study. APG, MCF, ASP, and BHS contributed to the writing. ASP and MCF searched the literature. MCF, APG, and ASP did the calculations. EMF, ASP, and MCF programmed the interface, with input from APG.

Declaration of interests
APG was an informal unpaid adviser to the Office of Senator Sanders regarding the Medicare for All Act, 2019. All other authors declare no competing interest.

[dware]

37. So this isn't a "peer reviewed" study?

Thank you for this info.

BTW, the poster who said it's peer reviewed has been put on time out.

[lapucelle]

39. Here's what Lancet says.

Supplementary appendix
This appendix formed part of the original submission and has been peer reviewed. We post it as supplied by the authors.

The article was published as a policy paper, not as scientific research.


https://www.thelancet.com/collections/public-health

******************************************************************************************

Here's the "conclusion" of the authors. It reads like a point of view based on speculation about cost savings, rather than science. The lead author is a BS advisor.

Our projections indicate that implementing the Medicare for All Act specifically would generate net savings across a wide range of possible expenditure and financing options.

Objections to the Medicare for All Act based on the expectation of rising costs are mistaken. Some Americans express concern about the federal government controlling this large sector of the economy, or about violating capitalist principles. However, the health-care sector is already highly regulated in many aspects, and deviates from capitalist ideals through opaque and often monopolistic pricing.

Strong opposition should be expected from powerful vested interests, including the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries.

Counterbalancing these concerns is the moral imperative to provide health care as a human right, not dependent on employment or affluence. The medical community should seize this opportunity to promote well being, enhance prosperity, and establish a more equitable health-care system for all Americans.

Caveat lector.

[lapucelle]

43. BS is actually cited in the references.

[TwilightZone]

28. M4A isn't Medicare.

That's part of the problem. It was called that essentially for marketing purposes because everyone knows what Medicare is and most people like it. M4A, however, would be nothing like Medicare. That's a factor in the confusion.

https://www.propublica.org/article/medicare-for-all-is-not-medicare-and-not-really-for-all-so-what-does-it-actually-mean

[ehrnst]

50. In response to your failure to provide any independent, non-partisan analysis,

here you go!

You're welcome!!

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=602353

[DanTex]

16. Well, the peer reviewed studies are with Bernie. But you have the right to your opinions.

Also about Bernie "losing steam" LOL. We'll find out soon enough...

[dware]

38. Also about Bernie "losing steam" LOL. We'll find out soon enough...

Yes we will, although the R's can rat fuck by voting for Bernie in the SC primary, as Trump has urged them to.

So you even wonder why Trump wants them to vote for Bernie?

It would be because Trump and the Russians believe that Bernie is the weakest candidate to go up against Trump in the GE, and they would be right.

[ehrnst]

49. Lol... No actual links to them? Well, never fear! Here are some you missed.

You're welcome! (they are all non-partisan, independent analysis by those who are not "out to take Bernie down" or "shills for big Pharma/insurance/medical industry" before you go shooting the messenger...)

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/press-release/2019/new-analysis-projects-cost-coverage-impacts-single-payer-plan-and-other-health

https://www.urban.org/research/publication/incremental-comprehensive-health-reform-how-various-reform-options-compare-coverage-and-costs

https://www.healthcare-now.org/single-payer-studies/kenneth-thorpe-2016/

https://www.healthcare-now.org/single-payer-studies/jodi-liu-2016/

And the CBO analysis:

https://khn.org/news/cbos-report-on-single-payer-health-care-holds-more-questions-than-answers/

[ehrnst]

22. And Bros who hate the Democratic Party at The Intercept are "go-to sources here."

It's strange.

[DanTex]

24. Bros? What?

[ehrnst]

33. Brogressives. They are "for" themselves.

http://diannaeanderson.net/blog/2013/7/anatomy-of-a-brogressive

Who did you think they were for?

[DanTex]

34. "Sometimes, The Brogressive will describe himself as "socially liberal, but fiscally conservative"

LOL. You think this article is talking about Intercept and Jacobin?

[ehrnst]

41. No, the writers. At least some of them.

The women toe the line, however, in scolding feminists for "not getting it," especially in Jacobin.

You're a fan, I see.

[DanTex]

42. LOL. So now you're attacking women who write at Jacobin. Nice!

I gotta say, there's something extra funny about a David Brooks fan attacking leftwing female columnists for not being feminist enough. Yeah, they should probably check in with David Brooks to validate their feminist credentials.

[ehrnst]

48. Go after that straw man...

Always there to attack when you are left with no actual rebuttal when your favorite sources are debunked shown to be anti-Democratic Party biased and white straight male apologists?

[gredinger]

12. Medicare for All *saves* money.

Let me be very clear. Our current system is expensive.

Medicare for all will save 450 BILLION dollars (12% our national expenditure).

It will save more than 70,000 lives. It will add 1.73 million life-hours to people's live, each and every year.

This is peer reviewed science, not knapkin math (like trickle down).

It's amazing to see Democrats attacking science. Like really amazing. It makes me question who's telling them to attack? Perhaps its the pharma industry, perhaps its just ignorance.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(19)33019-3/fulltext

Article name: Improving the prognosis of health care in the USA

Abstract:
Although health care expenditure per capita is higher in the USA than in any other country, more than 37 million Americans do not have health insurance, and 41 million more have inadequate access to care. Efforts are ongoing to repeal the Affordable Care Act which would exacerbate health-care inequities. By contrast, a universal system, such as that proposed in the Medicare for All Act, has the potential to transform the availability and efficiency of American health-care services. Taking into account both the costs of coverage expansion and the savings that would be achieved through the Medicare for All Act, we calculate that a single-payer, universal health-care system is likely to lead to a 13% savings in national health-care expenditure, equivalent to more than US$450 billion annually (based on the value of the US$ in 2017). The entire system could be funded with less financial outlay than is incurred by employers and households paying for health-care premiums combined with existing government allocations. This shift to single-payer health care would provide the greatest relief to lower-income households. Furthermore, we estimate that ensuring health-care access for all Americans would save more than 68 000 lives and 1·73 million life-years every year compared with the status quo.

[dware]

15. So someone who's been here for, what, 2 days,

is questioning the bona fides of those who have been here for years?

It's amazing to see Democrats attacking science. Like really amazing. It makes me question who's telling them to attack? Perhaps its the pharma industry, perhaps its just ignorance.

Maybe you ought to take a little advice and not go this route.
Just sayin.

And it's not attacking, it's questioning the numbers, which don't add up.

[gredinger]

18. Research....

I've posted a peer reviewed study. I've read the study. I even contacted the author of the study.

What have you done other than try to add up knapkin math? Are you actually a policy research? A professor that's spent their life studying this?

It's easy to sit on the sidelines and demand evidence. It's another thing to stick your head in the sand when someone provides the evidence. You're doing the latter.

Either back your rhetoric up with science, or at least admit you'd rather be like the Republicans where you legislate based on feelings and opinions.

[lapucelle]

31. You posted a link to a removed page.

There is no "evidence" at your link.

[DanTex]

20. Welcome to DU!

Things can get strange during primary season. Peer reviewed articles like the one you posted get ignored. Right-wing think-tankers like the guy who wrote the article in the OP get praised.

[gredinger]

23. Democrats denying science makes me sad.

It's pretty bad... I never thought I'd run into Democrats that use the same rhetoric as Republicans.

They must really hate Bernie.

[lapucelle]

40. That's not an "abstract" of a scientific study. It's a summary of an opinion piece by a BS advisor.

The Lancet is clear that this article is an opinion piece, not peer reviewed science. The Lancet also includes information cautioning readers that the lead author is an "interested party" as a BS advisor. BS is actually cited in the references.

https://www.thelancet.com/collections/public-health

[at140]

52. Since when expense estmates by economists have been accurate?

Especially government cost estimates are notorious for being off by significant amounts.

[MarcA]

13. Acts of desperation by Biden boys. n/t

[peggysue2]

7. Bernie Math!

Covers it all.

[Gothmog]

11. NYT-sanders plans do not add up

Link to tweet

Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, under growing pressure to explain how he would pay for his very expensive policy agenda, released a checklist on Monday evening that he described as a full explanation of how he would finance all of his proposals.

The actual document is somewhat limited, and in some cases the revenue Mr. Sanders identifies doesn’t match the costs of his plans.

For example, he estimated Sunday night on “60 Minutes” that the price tag for his “Medicare for all” plan would be about $30 trillion over 10 years, but the revenue he identifies for it in the new outline totals about $17.5 trillion. It is possible that the gap could be filled by existing appropriations for Medicare and Medicaid, but Mr. Sanders did not mention those in his outline or in the Sunday interview...…

Ms. Warren released a comprehensive plan in November to pay for her own version of Medicare for all, and the resulting scrutiny of the details was a major factor in her campaign’s decline. Mr. Sanders largely avoided that level of scrutiny by not releasing such extensive details.

His announcement on Monday came nominally in response to a question about whether his plan for free college was equivalent to President Trump’s promise to build a border wall and make Mexico pay for it: a rallying cry for supporters, but with no realistic path to happening.

[msongs]

17. reminds me of that old vermont folk tune, there'll be pie in the sky by and by nt

[Steelrolled]

32. So is single-payer off the table?

Can't be done?

Isn't this the republican position? Are we saying that they were right after all?

Bernie has put a stake in the ground, a starting point. Do the other candidates have plans where the finances are a piece of cake? That would be fantastic news.

Just asking.

[beastie boy]

35. Not necessarily. But it appears it cannot be done on Bernie's terms.

M4A is a very particular version of single payer. And it's not just a question of funding it, the bigger problem is passing it.

Warren's approach is much more grounded in reality: reach for single payer (not specifically M4A) through stepping up to public option first.

[Cha]

44. KR!

[beastie boy]

45. Mahalo for your kicks, Cha!

I appreciate it always, even in silence.

[Cha]

46. No worries, beastie..

I kick 'em as I see 'em. lol

Thank you!