If Bernie Bro were a language, how would you say "sticker shock" in it? Dumb question, I know -- they never worry about the cost of anything.
Still, this ought to be sobering:
The latest plan from the Vermont independent would require historic tax increases as government replaces what employers and consumers now pay for health care, according to the analysis being released Monday by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University in Virginia. It would deliver significant savings on administration and drug costs, but increased demand for care would drive up spending, the analysis found.
Sanders’ plan builds on Medicare, the popular insurance program for seniors. All U.S. residents would be covered with no copays and deductibles for medical services. The insurance industry would be relegated to a minor role.
“Enacting something like ‘Medicare for all’ would be a transformative change in the size of the federal government,” said Charles Blahous, the study’s author. Blahous was a senior economic adviser to former President George W. Bush and a public trustee of Social Security and Medicare during the Obama administration.
On the policy side, I'd note two things. Paying for "Medicare for All" would require DOUBLING our federal tax burden and yet would STILL leave us with trillion-dollar deficits in just a few short years from now. And those are just the current cost estimates. Infamously, Medicare ended up costing several times what was promised, and it didn't take many years for that to happen.
But the real meat of the matter is this: "Transformative change in the size of the federal government" is what the Progressives/Democratic Socialists are after. Health care is just one excuse. Climate change is another. But the end goal remains the same: Concentrate more money and more power in Washington, where they can be used to reward friends and punish enemies and enrich themselves.
Establishment journalists had a hissy today because President Trump called on Daily Caller reporter Saagar Enjeti first during a joint press conference with the Italian prime minister.
For example, we have "Fusion Ken" from NBC:
And here's ABC's Evan McMurry:
Commentary's Seth Mendel makes an excellent point here:
I don't think anybody at PJM has covered this yet but Russia has dumped more than 80% of its US bond holdings in a very short period of time.
Between March and May, Russia's holdings of US Treasury bonds plummeted by $81 billion, representing 84% of its total US debt holdings.
The sudden debt dump may have contributed to a short-term spike in Treasury rates that spooked the market. 10-year Treasury yields topped 3% in April for the first time since 2014.
It also sparked a guessing game about Moscow's motivations. Maybe Russia just wanted to diversify its portfolio, as the central bank stated. Or perhaps Russia was seeking revenge for Washington's crippling sanctions on aluminum maker Rusal.
Did Russia really try to to exact revenge for sanctions by driving US treasuries higher?
Now, if Russia really did offload the majority of its Treasuries, that surely contributed to the march higher in U.S. borrowing costs. Ian Lyngen at BMO Capital Markets quipped that “The market now has the answer to what would happen to Treasuries if a major holder decided to sell everything.” That would be a measly 11 basis points — the difference between 10-year yields at the end of March and the end of May.
Of course, as Lyngen goes on to say, China and Japan, with more than $2 trillion of holdings between them, could do far more damage to the $15 trillion Treasury market if they ever decided to sell en masse. And with the Trump administration launching tariffs on Chinese goods, it’s tempting to ponder how much yields would rise in that scenario. But as I’ve detailed, offloading Treasuries is largely a last-resort option for China, given that it has to manage a massive amount of foreign-exchange reserves. Japan has already been scaling back.
If you wanted to know if the Swedish media had its own version of the popular "Republicans Pounce" meme, here's your answer.
Steve noted that Mercator study that pegged Medicare for all spending at $32.6 trillion over 10 years.
So naturally, the left cheered the fact that the Bernie Sanders proposal would save $2 trillion over the same period.
"Even Libertarians Admit Medicare for All Would Save Trillions"
This is just plain lying:
At first glance, it is strange that the Mercatus Center, which is libertarian in its orientation and heavily funded by the libertarian Koch family, would publish a report this positive about Medicare for All. The claim that “even the Koch organizations say it will save money while covering everyone” provides a useful bit of rhetoric for proponents of the policy.
But the real game here for Mercatus is to bury the money-saving finding in the report’s tables while headlining the incomprehensibly large $32.6 trillion number in order to trick dim reporters into splashing that number everywhere and freaking out. This is a strategy that already appears to be working, as the Associated Press headline reads: “Study: ‘Medicare for all’ projected to cost $32.6 trillion.”
Not hardly. The "savings" would be in lower drug prices and administrative costs. But, as the AP reports, "It would deliver significant savings on administration and drug costs, but increased demand for care would drive up spending, the analysis found."
So we should adopt Medicare for all to save $2 trillion in health care costs while spending $32 trillion more? Sheesh.