Medicare for All advocates march in Los Angeles in February 2017. (Photo: Molly Adams/Flickr/cc)
Jake Tapper's Flawed 'Happy Fact Check Friday' on Medicare for All Widely Condemned
"Once again, the main impediment to the success of Medicare for All is actually liberals who are either stupid or dishonest about this stuff."
CNN anchor Jake Tapper added his name to a growing list of journalists in the corporate media who set out to debunk progressives' calls for Medicare for All on Friday with a "Friday Fact Check" segment, promptly misrepresenting statements by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and New York Democratic congressional candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as well as the conclusions of a Koch Brothers-funded study.
In his segment, produced in partnership with FactCheck.org, Tapper played two clips of Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez stating, respectively, that "Medicare for all would save the American people $2 trillion over a 10-year period" and that it is "actually much cheaper than the current system."
Tapper responded as though the two progressives had asserted that the system would be cheaper for the U.S. government--a claim Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez did not make--and ignored a conclusion of cost-savings that was buried in the study.
Watch:
\u201cCNN's Jake Tapper, in partnership with https://t.co/s5uylzeKgl, looks at a claim by Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez about a study on healthcare costs.\u201d— CNN Politics (@CNN Politics) 1534518120
Billy Gendell, a Sanders staffer, was among the critics who pushed back against Tapper's attempt to fact check.
Rather than arguing that Medicare for All would save money for the U.S. government--which was able to afford a $1.5 trillion tax cut for the wealthiest Americans last year and passed a National Defense Authorization Act this week allocating more than $717 billion to its military--single-payer healthcare advocates have generally focused on how such a system would save trillions of dollars in overall healthcare spending, including for U.S. families, 26 percent of whom report struggling to pay medical expenses.
As The Intercept's Ryan Grim and Matt Bruenig, founder of the People's Policy Project, tried to make clear to Tapper:
\u201c@MattBruenig @jaketapper @BenSpielberg @mercatus Not to pile on, but everything hinges on whether Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez said that the study found M4A would save "the government $2 trillion." I've never seen Sanders or AOC make that claim. It's about overall costs.\u201d— Ben Spielberg (@Ben Spielberg) 1534521277
The study cited in Tapper's segment and in a Common Dreams report last month was completed by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, which has received millions of dollars in funding from the right-wing Koch Brothers.
Bruenig, a policy analyst who has been detailing the study for readers, has noted that its author, Charles Blahous, focused largely on the $32.6 trillion he found Medicare for All would cost over the next decade and buried "the money-saving finding in the report's tables."
But Blahous, and Tapper in his assessment, failed to mention the more than $3.4 trillion the U.S. currently spends on healthcare per year, a number that suggests that the country will pay at least $34 trillion to keep the current for-profit health insurance industry running for another decade--about $2 trillion more than Blahous's projection for Sanders' Medicare for All plan.
"That's right," wrote Bruenig in a piece titled "Fact-Checking the Fact-Checkers on Medicare-for-All" earlier this week, "the same estimate with the scary $32.6 trillion figure they were promoting to all the journalists in the country also said that the U.S. could insure 30 million more Americans, virtually eliminate out-of-pocket expenses, and cover dental, vision, and hearing care for everyone all while spending $2 trillion less over the next 10 years."
As Tapper mentioned, CNN spoke with Blahous, who denied Sanders' and Ocasio-Cortez's conclusions about single-payer's savings.
One social media user wrote, "Matt Bruenig so thoroughly exposed the Koch brothers' report as benefiting consumers that the authors of the study (who want to discredit the people citing it positively) are trying to squeeze good PR out of fact-checking and again by misrepresenting THEIR OWN report."
Despite numerous critics correcting Tapper's conclusion, the "State of the Union" anchor would not budge.
\u201cHey @jaketapper: the claim you call false here is true. The $2 trillion savings is in the @mercatus tables & is part of the *very scenario they pitched to media outlets,* as @MattBruenig has repeatedly pointed out (see https://t.co/IxwKGh922y). Please make a corrected video.\u201d— Ben Spielberg (@Ben Spielberg) 1534521277
\u201c@BenSpielberg @mercatus @MattBruenig So we reviewed everything and we stand by everything i said in the video. I do however take issue with the graphic in the piece that says \u201cFalse\u201d since our conclusion was far more nuanced and i never said that word. So I\u2019ve asked them to remove that graphic. Thanks \u2014\u201d— Ben Spielberg (@Ben Spielberg) 1534521277
Tapper is just the most recent corporate news anchor to show hostility toward Medicare for All advocates while relying on shaky reasoning. Earlier this month, CNN anchor Chris Cuomo pointedly asked Ocasio-Cortez how the country would cope with the "sticker shock" of Medicare for All, appearing surprised when she responded, "When it comes to tax cuts for billionaires and when it comes to unlimited war, we seem to be able to invent that money very easily."
Following Tapper's segment, Bruenig shared his concern that conservatives are likely not the greatest threat to the possibility of providing healthcare to all Americans.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. The final deadline for our crucial Summer Campaign fundraising drive is just days away, and we’re falling short of our must-hit goal. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
CNN anchor Jake Tapper added his name to a growing list of journalists in the corporate media who set out to debunk progressives' calls for Medicare for All on Friday with a "Friday Fact Check" segment, promptly misrepresenting statements by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and New York Democratic congressional candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as well as the conclusions of a Koch Brothers-funded study.
In his segment, produced in partnership with FactCheck.org, Tapper played two clips of Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez stating, respectively, that "Medicare for all would save the American people $2 trillion over a 10-year period" and that it is "actually much cheaper than the current system."
Tapper responded as though the two progressives had asserted that the system would be cheaper for the U.S. government--a claim Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez did not make--and ignored a conclusion of cost-savings that was buried in the study.
Watch:
\u201cCNN's Jake Tapper, in partnership with https://t.co/s5uylzeKgl, looks at a claim by Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez about a study on healthcare costs.\u201d— CNN Politics (@CNN Politics) 1534518120
Billy Gendell, a Sanders staffer, was among the critics who pushed back against Tapper's attempt to fact check.
Rather than arguing that Medicare for All would save money for the U.S. government--which was able to afford a $1.5 trillion tax cut for the wealthiest Americans last year and passed a National Defense Authorization Act this week allocating more than $717 billion to its military--single-payer healthcare advocates have generally focused on how such a system would save trillions of dollars in overall healthcare spending, including for U.S. families, 26 percent of whom report struggling to pay medical expenses.
As The Intercept's Ryan Grim and Matt Bruenig, founder of the People's Policy Project, tried to make clear to Tapper:
\u201c@MattBruenig @jaketapper @BenSpielberg @mercatus Not to pile on, but everything hinges on whether Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez said that the study found M4A would save "the government $2 trillion." I've never seen Sanders or AOC make that claim. It's about overall costs.\u201d— Ben Spielberg (@Ben Spielberg) 1534521277
The study cited in Tapper's segment and in a Common Dreams report last month was completed by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, which has received millions of dollars in funding from the right-wing Koch Brothers.
Bruenig, a policy analyst who has been detailing the study for readers, has noted that its author, Charles Blahous, focused largely on the $32.6 trillion he found Medicare for All would cost over the next decade and buried "the money-saving finding in the report's tables."
But Blahous, and Tapper in his assessment, failed to mention the more than $3.4 trillion the U.S. currently spends on healthcare per year, a number that suggests that the country will pay at least $34 trillion to keep the current for-profit health insurance industry running for another decade--about $2 trillion more than Blahous's projection for Sanders' Medicare for All plan.
"That's right," wrote Bruenig in a piece titled "Fact-Checking the Fact-Checkers on Medicare-for-All" earlier this week, "the same estimate with the scary $32.6 trillion figure they were promoting to all the journalists in the country also said that the U.S. could insure 30 million more Americans, virtually eliminate out-of-pocket expenses, and cover dental, vision, and hearing care for everyone all while spending $2 trillion less over the next 10 years."
As Tapper mentioned, CNN spoke with Blahous, who denied Sanders' and Ocasio-Cortez's conclusions about single-payer's savings.
One social media user wrote, "Matt Bruenig so thoroughly exposed the Koch brothers' report as benefiting consumers that the authors of the study (who want to discredit the people citing it positively) are trying to squeeze good PR out of fact-checking and again by misrepresenting THEIR OWN report."
Despite numerous critics correcting Tapper's conclusion, the "State of the Union" anchor would not budge.
\u201cHey @jaketapper: the claim you call false here is true. The $2 trillion savings is in the @mercatus tables & is part of the *very scenario they pitched to media outlets,* as @MattBruenig has repeatedly pointed out (see https://t.co/IxwKGh922y). Please make a corrected video.\u201d— Ben Spielberg (@Ben Spielberg) 1534521277
\u201c@BenSpielberg @mercatus @MattBruenig So we reviewed everything and we stand by everything i said in the video. I do however take issue with the graphic in the piece that says \u201cFalse\u201d since our conclusion was far more nuanced and i never said that word. So I\u2019ve asked them to remove that graphic. Thanks \u2014\u201d— Ben Spielberg (@Ben Spielberg) 1534521277
Tapper is just the most recent corporate news anchor to show hostility toward Medicare for All advocates while relying on shaky reasoning. Earlier this month, CNN anchor Chris Cuomo pointedly asked Ocasio-Cortez how the country would cope with the "sticker shock" of Medicare for All, appearing surprised when she responded, "When it comes to tax cuts for billionaires and when it comes to unlimited war, we seem to be able to invent that money very easily."
Following Tapper's segment, Bruenig shared his concern that conservatives are likely not the greatest threat to the possibility of providing healthcare to all Americans.
CNN anchor Jake Tapper added his name to a growing list of journalists in the corporate media who set out to debunk progressives' calls for Medicare for All on Friday with a "Friday Fact Check" segment, promptly misrepresenting statements by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and New York Democratic congressional candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as well as the conclusions of a Koch Brothers-funded study.
In his segment, produced in partnership with FactCheck.org, Tapper played two clips of Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez stating, respectively, that "Medicare for all would save the American people $2 trillion over a 10-year period" and that it is "actually much cheaper than the current system."
Tapper responded as though the two progressives had asserted that the system would be cheaper for the U.S. government--a claim Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez did not make--and ignored a conclusion of cost-savings that was buried in the study.
Watch:
\u201cCNN's Jake Tapper, in partnership with https://t.co/s5uylzeKgl, looks at a claim by Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez about a study on healthcare costs.\u201d— CNN Politics (@CNN Politics) 1534518120
Billy Gendell, a Sanders staffer, was among the critics who pushed back against Tapper's attempt to fact check.
Rather than arguing that Medicare for All would save money for the U.S. government--which was able to afford a $1.5 trillion tax cut for the wealthiest Americans last year and passed a National Defense Authorization Act this week allocating more than $717 billion to its military--single-payer healthcare advocates have generally focused on how such a system would save trillions of dollars in overall healthcare spending, including for U.S. families, 26 percent of whom report struggling to pay medical expenses.
As The Intercept's Ryan Grim and Matt Bruenig, founder of the People's Policy Project, tried to make clear to Tapper:
\u201c@MattBruenig @jaketapper @BenSpielberg @mercatus Not to pile on, but everything hinges on whether Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez said that the study found M4A would save "the government $2 trillion." I've never seen Sanders or AOC make that claim. It's about overall costs.\u201d— Ben Spielberg (@Ben Spielberg) 1534521277
The study cited in Tapper's segment and in a Common Dreams report last month was completed by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, which has received millions of dollars in funding from the right-wing Koch Brothers.
Bruenig, a policy analyst who has been detailing the study for readers, has noted that its author, Charles Blahous, focused largely on the $32.6 trillion he found Medicare for All would cost over the next decade and buried "the money-saving finding in the report's tables."
But Blahous, and Tapper in his assessment, failed to mention the more than $3.4 trillion the U.S. currently spends on healthcare per year, a number that suggests that the country will pay at least $34 trillion to keep the current for-profit health insurance industry running for another decade--about $2 trillion more than Blahous's projection for Sanders' Medicare for All plan.
"That's right," wrote Bruenig in a piece titled "Fact-Checking the Fact-Checkers on Medicare-for-All" earlier this week, "the same estimate with the scary $32.6 trillion figure they were promoting to all the journalists in the country also said that the U.S. could insure 30 million more Americans, virtually eliminate out-of-pocket expenses, and cover dental, vision, and hearing care for everyone all while spending $2 trillion less over the next 10 years."
As Tapper mentioned, CNN spoke with Blahous, who denied Sanders' and Ocasio-Cortez's conclusions about single-payer's savings.
One social media user wrote, "Matt Bruenig so thoroughly exposed the Koch brothers' report as benefiting consumers that the authors of the study (who want to discredit the people citing it positively) are trying to squeeze good PR out of fact-checking and again by misrepresenting THEIR OWN report."
Despite numerous critics correcting Tapper's conclusion, the "State of the Union" anchor would not budge.
\u201cHey @jaketapper: the claim you call false here is true. The $2 trillion savings is in the @mercatus tables & is part of the *very scenario they pitched to media outlets,* as @MattBruenig has repeatedly pointed out (see https://t.co/IxwKGh922y). Please make a corrected video.\u201d— Ben Spielberg (@Ben Spielberg) 1534521277
\u201c@BenSpielberg @mercatus @MattBruenig So we reviewed everything and we stand by everything i said in the video. I do however take issue with the graphic in the piece that says \u201cFalse\u201d since our conclusion was far more nuanced and i never said that word. So I\u2019ve asked them to remove that graphic. Thanks \u2014\u201d— Ben Spielberg (@Ben Spielberg) 1534521277
Tapper is just the most recent corporate news anchor to show hostility toward Medicare for All advocates while relying on shaky reasoning. Earlier this month, CNN anchor Chris Cuomo pointedly asked Ocasio-Cortez how the country would cope with the "sticker shock" of Medicare for All, appearing surprised when she responded, "When it comes to tax cuts for billionaires and when it comes to unlimited war, we seem to be able to invent that money very easily."
Following Tapper's segment, Bruenig shared his concern that conservatives are likely not the greatest threat to the possibility of providing healthcare to all Americans.