“Sanders’ ‘Medicare for All’ plan “would cost more than the entire federal budget that we spend now.”
Former Vice President Joe Biden in feedback in the course of the New Hampshire presidential major debate, Feb.7
This story was produced in partnership with PolitiFact.
This story might be republished totally free (details). During the Feb. 7 Democratic presidential debate, former Vice President Joe Biden as soon as once more questioned the worth tag of “Medicare for All,” the single-payer well being care proposal championed by one in all his key rivals, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont.
Biden argued that the plan was fiscally irresponsible and would require elevating middle-class taxes. Specifically, he claimed, the plan “would cost more than the entire federal budget that we spend now.”
Medicare for All’s worth — and whether or not it’s value it — is a topic of fierce dialogue amongst Democratic presidential candidates. But we had by no means heard this determine earlier than. It caught our consideration, so we determined to dig in.
Biden’s marketing campaign directed us to the 2018 federal price range, which totaled $four.1 trillion. It in contrast that quantity with the estimated value of Sanders’ single-payer proposal: between $30 trillion and $40 trillion over a decade. The math, they stated, exhibits Medicare for All would value greater than the nationwide price range.
But it seems, primarily based on the numbers and interviews with unbiased specialists, Biden’s comparability of Medicare for All’s worth to complete federal spending misses the mark as a result of the calculation is flawed.
Email Sign-Up
Subscribe to KHN’s free Morning Briefing.
The Numbers
Sanders has stated publicly that economists estimate Medicare for All would value someplace between $30 trillion and $40 trillion over 10 years. Research by the nonpartisan Urban Institute, a Washington, D.C., assume tank, places the determine within the $32 trillion to $34 trillion vary.
We identified to Biden’s marketing campaign that evaluating 10-year spending estimates to one-year budgets is like evaluating apples to oranges. The marketing campaign urged that in case you take 10 occasions the present federal price range, you get a determine smaller than the estimated value of Medicare for All over that 10-year window.
That calculation would lead you to multiply $four.1 trillion by 10 to get $41.1 trillion. That result’s near the excessive mark Sanders set for his program’s value however properly above the $34 trillion that Urban researchers projected.
Still, that’s not the right solution to formulate a comparability, specialists say. “That’s not good math,” stated Marc Goldwein, the senior vice chairman and senior coverage director on the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. “That’s taking a 2018 number and multiplying it by 10, whereas the $34 trillion is a 10-year number that assumes a lot of growth.”
What you would wish to do is add up the Congressional Budget Office’s projected price range outlays from 2020 to 2029, and examine the sum to the Medicare for All spending determine.
So we spoke to Linda Blumberg, an institute fellow at Urban’s Health Policy Center, who arrived on the $34 trillion estimate. She ran the CBO’s numbers: The subsequent 10 years of on-budget outlay, the federal government workplace initiatives, add as much as $44.Eight trillion.
Sources:
ABC News / WMUR Democratic debate, Feb. 7, 2019
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, “National Health Expenditure Data,” Dec. 17, 2019
Congressional Budget Office, “The Budget and Economic Outlook,” January 2020
Telephone interview with Linda Blumberg, Urban Institute, Feb. 7, 2020
Telephone interview with Marc Goldwein, Center for Responsible Federal Budget, Feb. 11, 2020
Urban Institute, “Don’t Confuse Changes in Federal Health Spending with National Health Spending,” Oct. 16, 2019
Urban Institute, “From Incremental to Comprehensive Health Reform: How Various Reform Options Compare on Coverage and Costs,” Oct. 16, 2019
To be clear, $34 trillion (34 adopted by 12 zeros) is not any small sum. It accounts for about 75% of that just about $45 trillion price range estimate and would symbolize an even bigger single improve to the federal price range than we’ve ever skilled, Blumberg stated.
That raises one level on which Biden might have some floor. Goldwein argued that you’d certainly want vital tax will increase to finance the Sanders proposal.
But its price ticket nonetheless can be lower than the projected price range.
“If he said [Medicare for All] was as big as the current federal budget, that would be incorrect,” Blumberg stated.
Goldwein appeared on the numbers one other method: Including curiosity, he discovered, the federal price range would devour about $55 trillion between now and 2030. Again, that’s greater than what Medicare for All would value throughout the identical interval.
Big image: No matter the way you slice Biden’s math, his numbers are off.
“If what he said was Medicare for All will cost as much as the entire rest of the budget, that would be fair,” Goldwein stated. But that’s not the identical factor.
Our Ruling
Biden argued that Medicare for All “would cost more than the entire federal budget that we spend now.”
This depends on defective math. Medicare for All will surely symbolize a considerable improve to the federal price range. But it could neither match nor dwarf present federal spending general. We charge this declare False.
Shefali Luthra: ShefaliL@kff.org”>ShefaliL@kff.org, @Shefalil
Related Topics Elections Health Care Costs Insurance Medicare KHN & PolitiFact HealthCheck src=”http://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js” charset=”utf-Eight”>