Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The math behind Bernie Sanders' vision

Collapse

Google Ads

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The math behind Bernie Sanders' vision

    https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/26/polit...nes/index.html

    Sanders' proposals, including Medicare for All, a Green New Deal, free tuition at public universities and more add up to at least $50 trillion over 10 years. His announced plans to pay for the programs, subtracting more than $2 trillion he claims for averting the climate crisis, leave a more than $5 trillion gap.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/24/u...e-for-all.html

    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. If Mr. Sanders has plans to fill that gap, he did not mention them in his outline or in his interview on Sunday.
    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...-plans/607105/

    These numbers are estimates—subject to inevitable uncertainty and imprecision. But their general direction is clear. I recently calculated that their cumulative price tag would reach about $60 trillion over 10 years. The Progressive Policy Institute, a centrist Democratic think tank, put the 10-year cost at about $55 trillion.

    At either number, the Sanders agenda would roughly double the $52 trillion that the Congressional Budget Office projects the federal government will spend over the next decade on all existing programs, from defense to Social Security. Even at a lower, $50 trillion estimate, the Sanders plan would increase federal spending as a share of the economy by about 20 percentage points, according to calculations that Larry Summers, the former Treasury secretary under Bill Clinton and former chief economist at the World Bank, shared with me earlier this winter. Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal, the largest 20th-century peacetime spending program, increased federal expenditures as a share of GDP by eight percentage points, according to Summers’s calculations.

    “You would need even more revenue than he is proposing to fully offset those costs,” says Jared Bernstein, an economist and senior fellow at the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities who is generally sympathetic to Sanders’s agenda. “It is not realistic to believe you can get all those revenues from the top 1, 5, or 10 percent [of households]. You would have to go down further than that. The rest of it has to come from a broader base of taxpayers or it has to go on the deficit.”

  • #2
    Oh, are we pretending that debt is real again?

    Last edited by Spartan; 02-27-2020, 07:46 AM.

    Comment


    • #4
      Alright, so for the sake of future arguments, all countries filled in green are now considered to be communist.

      mf healthcaremap p.jpg

      Comment


      • #5
        An additional $700B a year to fully fund M4A, which includes no copays or deductibles, is the most ludicrous bullshit I've read in a while.

        Comment


        • #6
          Anyone who has continuously praised communisim is a communist. Supporting said person, and then falsifying number to make their pipedream seen plausible, makes you a communist as well. It's called guilt by association.

          Let's be generous and say that those aren't communist beliefs, just misguided ones. Do you know what the serious flaw the argument you just presented is? It's the cost of medicine. There is no way to lower the cost of medicine to levels enjoyed by those nations. At best you can get our cost for medicine to cost between 55% and 66% more than theirs vs the approximately 77% price difference we currently see.

          The current cost of medicare is 582 billion if which approximately 175 billion is spent on prescription drugs. Paying what other countries pay for their prescription drugs, that would be reduced to approximately 124 billion.

          Let's be generous and say by some miracle you get prescription prices that low. Please explain how the current cost of 531 billion(using estimated cost of prescriptions under bernies plan) to insure 44 million people will only increase 783 billion when you add another 300 million people to the pool.

          I mean, you socialist have to have some kind if math that makes this theory work. That lady said so in her tweet.

          I'm just having trouble figuring it out. The most generous number I could come up with was 3 trillion dollars to pay for medicare for all. That is based on the current cost of 13.2 million per person, reduced by 30 percent to account for real world chance of lower prescription cost, times the current estimated population. That's just a little bit more expensive than the proposed 1.3 trillion of Bernies plan.

          I'll hang up and wait.

          Comment


          • #7
            Originally posted by Spartan View Post
            Oh, are we pretending that debt is real again?

            https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...all-yale-study

            First, you should know the lead author on this study, Alison Galvani, disclosed in the paper that she’s been an unpaid adviser to Sanders’s Senate office.

            And then there are some of the assumptions the authors make to come up with their numbers.

            The Yale study’s authors assume bigger savings and bigger health benefits than the other researchers who have looked at the same question.




            So while the Lancet study gives Sanders good talking points for the debate stage, it’s probably the rosiest projection of life under Medicare-for-all that you’re going to see. No one — not single-payer supporters or opponents — should take one study in isolation.
            https://khn.org/news/bernie-sanders-...icism-abounds/

            A spokesperson for the Sanders campaign said the paper is “similar to 22 other recent studies that have also shown that moving to a single-payer healthcare system will cost less than our current dysfunctional healthcare system.” (We asked for those 22 other studies but, as of publication, hadn’t received them.)

            But other independent experts were skeptical of the Lancet study’s estimate — arguing it exaggerates potential savings, cherry-picks evidence and downplays some of the potential trade-offs.

            The price tag of Medicare for All has been fiercely debated, and previous analyses have suggested that the proposal would increase health spending, not decrease it. But Sanders is relying on the Lancet paper — which has the lowest cost estimate for the plan, in the neighborhood of $17 trillion over 10 years — to argue that the suite of financing mechanisms he has proposed would more than cover the cost of his health bill. (Funding would include taxes on high earners, a new payroll tax and 4% income premiums for the majority of families.) Most other estimates place the cost between $30 trillion and $40 trillion over a decade, which would make paying for it far more difficult.
            https://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sand...-money-1489149

            The Lancet paper estimates that the costs for Medicare for All could come to $17 trillion over 10 years, a significantly lower amount compared to the roughly $30 to $40 trillion other studies have estimated the plan might cost the U.S. over a decade.

            However, critics have been quick to dismiss that study, with health economists warning that its findings rely on unrealistic assumptions to arrive at that number.

            "The assumptions are unrealistic," Gerard Anderson, a health economist at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore recently told Kaiser Health News.

            Noting that the study claims hospitals would spend less money on overhead costs with a single insurance plan, Anderson said the research ignores all the other costs that they would need to cover, including staffing electronic health records.
            Last edited by TTURedRaider; 02-27-2020, 12:26 PM.

            Comment


            • #8
              Even at $17 trillion over 10 years, we're still failing to hit $17 trillion in funding from Bernie's tax plans. I think his website put one out that added up to $16 trillion.

              So if we take the most optimistic cost projection and the most optimistic revenue generation projection we're still shy a trillion dollars. The reality will be that the cost will almost certainly be more than $17 trillion and the revenue generation will almost certainly not hit $16 trillion.

              It's nonsense. I'm okay with M4A but don't bullshit us with fake math and let's have an honest conversation about how much this will cost. If it is $34 trillion, then let's outline how to pay for it instead of pretending like it will only cost half as much.

              Comment


              • #9
                You think Sanders supporters actually have the mental capacity for math that goes beyond 5 digits? Why do you think they support the guy?

                Comment


                • #10
                  Originally posted by Nash View Post
                  You think Sanders supporters actually have the mental capacity for math that goes beyond 5 digits? Why do you think they support the guy?
                  Short answer, he tells them things they like to hear.

                  Comment


                  • #11
                    Originally posted by DPR View Post
                    Even at $17 trillion over 10 years, we're still failing to hit $17 trillion in funding from Bernie's tax plans. I think his website put one out that added up to $16 trillion.

                    So if we take the most optimistic cost projection and the most optimistic revenue generation projection we're still shy a trillion dollars. The reality will be that the cost will almost certainly be more than $17 trillion and the revenue generation will almost certainly not hit $16 trillion.

                    It's nonsense. I'm okay with M4A but don't bullshit us with fake math and let's have an honest conversation about how much this will cost. If it is $34 trillion, then let's outline how to pay for it instead of pretending like it will only cost half as much.
                    Only way M4A can become reality is if you put govt pricing controls on everybody in the healthcare industry. That means telling doctors they can't earn more than 100K / year. Telling hospitals they can only charge $100/day for ER rooms - telling pharma they can only charge US customers what they are charging Indian patients.

                    Comment


                    • #12
                      Originally posted by sctrojan View Post

                      Only way M4A can become reality is if you put govt pricing controls on everybody in the healthcare industry. That means telling doctors they can't earn more than 100K / year. Telling hospitals they can only charge $100/day for ER rooms - telling pharma they can only charge US customers what they are charging Indian patients.
                      You just gave Spartan a gargantuan boner.

                      Comment


                      • #13
                        Bernie Math

                        Rainbows + Unicorns = Happiness!

                        Comment


                        • #14
                          Originally posted by ibleed View Post
                          Bernie Math

                          Rainbows + Unicorns = Happiness!
                          Billionaires / 0 = infinite tax revenue

                          Comment


                          • #15
                            Originally posted by Nash View Post

                            You just gave Spartan a gargantuan boner.
                            Actually that's what happens in the NHS in England - you don't see doctors in England owning 2nd houses or a boat.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X