Would Bernie Sanders’s ‘Medicare for All’ save $2 trillion? | Fact Checker

For FREE help finding a Medicare plan,
Click here or call 1-800-729-9590.

Democrats across the country are touting 'Medicare for All,' but many candidates are leaving out important context. Read more: . Subscribe to The Washington Post on YouTube:

Follow us:
Twitter:
Instagram:
Facebook:

 

Share This:

47 thoughts on “Would Bernie Sanders’s ‘Medicare for All’ save $2 trillion? | Fact Checker

  1. We would collectively be paying less if the fraudulent insurance companies did NOT exist and we went through single payer. We all know Washington Post is owned by Jeff Bezos. Stfu and get over it. The revolution is coming!

    • These aren’t the Washington Post’s numbers, it is a number found by most reputable studies.

    • Kim Jong The Choo Choo Train of Bel-Air its about American expenditures on Healthcare it would save 2 trillion on that, they arent saying it would reduce government expenditures

    • +Muhammad Ahmed when the rich pay for a majority of taxes, of course taxes are going to benefit them most. It’s common sense. That doesn’t mean that middle class Americans are somehow worse off than they were before…they’re still getting to keep more of their hard-earned income.

    • +TheEternal792 really, last I checked Boeing, apple and other major companies like Exxon Mobil paid next no taxes. Some of them received tax money for free.

      Also, since the tax cut wages fell 2% wth. So it makes no sense.

    • +Muhammad Ahmed if they’re paying next to no taxes, that’s a loophole that should be fixed by simplifying the tax code…maybe to something as simple and fair as a flat tax? Besides, your argument is moot. If they’re not paying anything to begin with, then the tax break doesn’t help them at all and only helps the middle class.

    • It’s not about what they “need”, it’s about morals. Could they live without a tax cut? Yeah, but they have a right to their hard work, success, and earnings, just like everyone else does. Robbery doesn’t suddenly become less immoral just because I’m taking from someone more successful than me.

  2. All other countries with single payer spend half per capita, or less, as the United States. So how on earth would US healthcare spending rise or remain the same if we adopted the same approach? The Koch Bros, arch-conservative billionaires, devised a study that ultimately vindicated Mr. Sanders proposal, using the most uncharitable stats they could conjure. If even the Kochs, with their naked agenda, can’t succeed in discrediting the concept of single payer, then the Post’s efforts are beyond futile. I give the Post maximum Pinocchio’s.

  3. Ignoring the fact that our currently cost for healthcare is over 50 trillion, and that we’d be saving more with single payer; reducing the cost significantly

    • It’s 32 trillion more, not 32 trillion total. Or in other words, a medicare for all system would have us spending 80 trillion+

    • Kim Jong The Choo Choo Train of Bel-Air yeah, exactly. Right now we would be spending 50 trillion dollars morenaccprd8ng to the top comment with Bernie plan it is 32.6 trillion more which means it SAVES MONEY

    • Lol correct bc using the current system instead of spending 32.6 trillion we will end up spending 48 trillion I believe so in honesty it saves well over 10 trillion dollars of the AMERICAN PEOPLE’S money dont be fooled by Republican propaganda when research, studies, and successful governments around the world prove too us pur government cares only for corporate not the majority

    • You are right. Washington Post aren’t factoring in the administration process with insurance. Including insurance premiums and the economy as a playing factor. A regulated budget stops private sector from changing the goal posts to get more profits when their company suffers – especially when it is international.

    • IF America is to ever have a “successful” socialized medical system (like Austria/not Australia), they will need to ween themselves off of Big Pharma and Monsanto’s toxic GMO foods, at some point. The 20th Century is over. Wake up! Lol. This is the reason why so many Americans are overweight and ill. Successful nations with Healthcare For All naturally eat an organic diet in order to maintain a healthy immune system, and they practice prevention, rather than a dependence on big pharma meds (usually for life), health insurance, and Monsanto’s GMO for nutrition. And for God’s sake — breastfeed your babies. If you do, perhaps they’ll develop strong immune systems — rather than the cancer epidemic that has suddenly sprung up around us. The new norm? (“Genesis 1:11, Genesis 1:29-30”) Time to catch up to the 21st Century, America! Time to lose some weight and really get healthy. Remember when we were healthy and thin? I do.

    • Australia’s single pay system is pretty good, thanks. We don’t ever worry about costs associated with healthcare, it’s just not a concern. If you’ve got a health problem, you go see your GP, get a referral to a specialist, whatever medicines you require, it’s either free for the unemployed and pensioners, or heavily subsidised for those who work. It’s a good system, where private and public healthcare providers work in tandem, so duplication of services are kept to a minimum, and all the associated costs are strictly regulated by government. Australia spends less than half that which the US spends on healthcare as a percentage of GDP, while giving complete medical coverage to 100% of the population.

  4. I reckon many insurance companies sponsored this video, the pinocchio is the Washington post lying to the people. Everyone deserve a free health care system, is its to fund stupid bills in congress for their donors, no problem. But for the people? Its expensive. Rubbish

  5. And could we talk in Quality of life raised and lives saved please? AND really? No proof, just some disembodied voice saying that Democrats are Cherry picking what numbers? No mention of the studies name or who carried it out… Are you talking about the Koch brothers paid research that was proven to save money over what we are currently paying? I think your Fact Checkers deserve some Pinocchio’s themselves, bad job people, really weak Video post here. 20 down to 8 up votes so far, pure failure!

    • The powers that be worship only money and wealth. They give little fucks about people. People are an inconvenience to them. That’s why folks at Nestle are privatizing water. When the world finally collapses, all these rich psychos will sit back and sell us the only available food and water, whilst we slave away.

      Good luck ever stopping the companies that be. They all hire private security!
      *Hey, it’s Merryweather here to save us!*

      ▲21∞

  6. I’d like to see more reporting from the Washington Post on how its corporate advertisers and its own owners are exacerbating the already vast economic inequality in our country, thereby preventing the majority of Americans from being able to afford quality health care, among other things.

  7. This clip explained only half the story and left the most important part out. I am surprised by this from the WP. I expected fair reporting here and it is not present.

  8. Note: We said “doctors, hospitals, drug companies would be paid 40 percent less than they are now,” but it’s more accurate to say providers would face an immediate cut of roughly 40 percent. Drug costs would $846 billion lower over ten years from an aggressive program to negotiate lower prescription drug prices, but it would not be as much as a 40 percent decline.

    • You also said that these were Bernie’s numbers, but they’re not. They’re the assumptions made made the Koch bothers study who had every incentive to portray Medicare for all as expensive as possible. What makes you think the authors of the study are wrong? The reason they had to makes those assumptions of savings is because other countries with single payer actually save upwards of 50% on drug negotiations and the current administration costs of Medicare are a fraction of those in private insurance. You should honestly be ashamed of yourself for lying to American people on a issue where lives are at stake.

    • This is why people’s are turning away from corporate media. It’s sad when your viewers have to fact check you. I give this video 10 Pinocchio’s lol

    • Poor doctor’s, they get paid like teachers do. We gotta take care of the real human beings like doctors and politicians. Ahh the Rich no shame lol

  9. This was as dishonest as the Fox News coverage.
    * It says DEMOCRATS are cherrypicking, when that particular value came from a Koch Bros study.
    * It did the same Fox News trick of quoting the $32b as if it was ON TOP of all current spending
    * ..and how can anyone be taken seriously if they don’t start by admitting EVERY other developed nation has some form of universal healthcare, and they are ALL cheaper than the US.. and furthermore the US system achieves only mediocre results on average and HIDEOUS results in detail (too numerous and varied to list here).

    Given that last point.. even if you DID think the medicare for all was flawed.. shouldnt you be grabbing for a piece of paper to scribble down your own FIXED version of universal healthcare that delivers exactly what all those other countries manage to deliver?

  10. Why didn’t you mention how much we currently spend on Healthcare? Is it because you’re bought by the private insurance companies?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *